Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Agreed. What matters (for versioning) is having a default processing model that treats the elements with funny names differently. Right now, attributes implicitly provide that segregation. -----Original Message----- From: Peter Hunsberger [mailto:peter.hunsberger@g...] Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 8:24 AM To: Andrew Layman Cc: XML-dev Subject: Re: Mixed content in data-binding (Was: Re: Interesting pair of comments On 7/15/05, Andrew Layman <andrewl@m...> wrote: <snip/> > > But there is also a versioning issue. Since adding such meta-data as the > last-modified date after the fact is a typical usage, attributes today > allow such annotation with less disruption to existing readers. E.g. > > <email last-modified='2005-02-02'>fred@s...</email> > > But this only works to one level. One cannot add an attribute to that > attribute. > > One could imagine a future version of XML that treated elements and > attributes with more parallelism, and allowed attributes to have > structure, perhaps with an element-like syntax, as in: > > <email>fred@s...<@last-modified>2005-02-02</@last-modified></em > ail> > > And > > <email>fred@s...<@last-modified>2005-02-02<@says-who>Joe</@says > -who></@last-modified></email> > Umm, not to be glib, but at that point you just have an element with a funny name. Semantically, elements can already replace attributes, so what's the point? -- Peter Hunsberger
|
