Re: RE: Just nodes please
On 12/06/2010 06:56 PM, Michael Kay wrote: > On 06/12/2010 16:34, David Lee wrote: >> Nothing stopping your application from allowing that equivalence >> [between attributes and child elements]. > > Yes, but it's an interesting idea that the parser should treat them as > equivalent, simplifying the API and allowing an effortless move from > attributes to child elements when the data gets more complex. Anything > we can do to simplify the API (and thus the mapping to data structures > supported by programming languages) is a move in the right direction. My feeling exactly. Just to clarify and in the context of an element node, I'm only suggesting the following two cases of equivalence: child element node <> attribute node with the same expanded name (normalized) child text node <> (normalized) attribute value An interesting exercise might be default conversion rules from such an "XML 2.0" to XML 1.x (e.g. xml:foo to attributes). Schema-driven conversions should be proven relatively simple. Cheers, Manos
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
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