[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Better design: "flatter is better" or "nesting isbetter

• To: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@a...>
• Subject: RE: Better design: "flatter is better" or "nesting isbetter" ?
• From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>
• Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 09:40:53 +0100
• Cc: XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <3623.203.164.10.154.1128229336.squirrel@i...>
• References: <827BC324B431954A855DC4E39E71B02874BDF0@I...> <3623.203.164.10.154.1128229336.squirrel@i...>
• Reply-to: davep@d...

On Sun, 2005-10-02 at 15:02 +1000, Rick Jelliffe wrote:

> Also, the "elimiate non-essential tags" rule flies in the
> face of the capabilities of XML Schemas, where introducing extra
> layers is the only way to get different content models: XML Schemas
> forces you to use elements where attributes might be more natural.

Which sounds a bit like add tags simply to keep the validator happy?
If you are operating in a straight jacket situation then yes.
If you want to apply your own authoring 
constraints then this should be unnecessary.

> Furthermore, for documents that will be sent for publising, there
> is a kind of "critical mass" or minimum-density-of-metadata without
> which a document is useless for publishing.

If you mean markup within low level elements I'd agree,
e.g. inlines within a para.
Otherwise I don't follow the logic there Rick.



>  It would be better
> to re-phrase that "eliminate speculative tags" IMHO.

Speculative == redundant (for todays known applications)?

regards DaveP

• References:
  • RE: Better design: "flatter is better" or "nesting is
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <rjelliffe@a...>

• Prev by Date: Validity Checking
• Next by Date: new W3C list for schema discussions
• Previous by thread: RE: Better design: "flatter is better" or "nesting is
• Next by thread: RE: Better design: "flatter is better" or "nesting is better" ?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread