|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Attribute Order (Was: Create XML )
[Simon St.Laurent] > I don't find abstraction to be the essence of XML. I find XML to be a > text-based format with labels inside - and I do suspect that foundation > is what makes it popular, not the damn Infoset. > I suspect that _metaphor_ is the "essence" of XML and predecessors. Take a piece of paper with text (and whatever) on it. What do people naturally do with it besides read it? They highlight passages (inline markup), they circle or otherwise mark blocks (block type elements), they move blocks around with scissors and tape (transformations), and they insert comments and instructions at points - like proofreader's marks (PIs and inline elements), and they write notes to themselves (more inline elements, though XML is weak in its support for annotations, IMHO). A "data-centric " view is still that of a series of blocks in a report, so it still works with the metaphor. I think that whenever some abstraction or feature strays too far from this basic metaphor, more and more people start having problems in understanding XML. I18n doesn't fit too well, but at least people know about other languages. Attributes sort of fit with annotating the purpose of an inline markup, so they sort of fit but still people are arguing about them because they do not fit all that well. Either we should try to stick within the metaphor or we should replace it with a more compelling one. Several can even be used together, but what does not work so well is to have a lot of features that do not fit any familiar metaphor. XML Schema, anyone? Cheers, Tom P
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||

Cart








