[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Attributes vs. text content
Point well taken, and this just shows to go you that mixing implementation and abstraction causes funny things to happen. And lets be fair about what an 'attributeless' XML might look like: <?xml?> <xml:version> 1.0 </xml:version> <!-- the rpc package -this is temporary we are porting off of this --> <xmlns:rpc> http://www.w3.org/rpc </xmlns:rpc> <xmlns:html> http://www.w3.org/html </xmlns:html> <!-- the query name space package -this is the version 1 is this right? --> <xmlns:xql> http://www.w3.org/xql </xmlns:xql> <xmlns:xtype> http://www.w3.org/xtype </xmlns:xtype> <rpc:methodCall> <rpc:type> asynchronous </rpc:type> <rpc:completion> callback </rpc:completion> <rpc:name> xmlbased.cgi.named.foo </rpc:name> <rpc:argument> <rpc:ordinal>1</rpc:ordinal> <xtype:type> foo.bar.goo </xtype:type> <rpc:pack> binary-reverse </rpc:pack> <rpc:content> <xql:query> foo/*&//.$^# </xql:query> </rpc:content> </rpc:argument> <rpc:argument> <rpc:ordinal>2</rpc:ordinal> <xtype:type> foo.bar.text </xtype:type> <xtype:encoding> ISO9087345 </xtype:encoding> <rpc:pack> binary-reverse </rpc:pack> <rpc:content> <html:p> this is a paragraph </html:p> </rpc:content> </rpc:argument> </rpc:methodCall> Is this potential full featured RPC more or less readable than its equivalent using attributes? Useability studies in my experience (YMMV) show that what one is used to often seems the 'easiest' or 'best' and this works in both directions, even if there are absolute comprehension or speed issues with one or the other. I can mention that the above seems more readable to *me*, but I come from a different background, and it is merely subjective anecdotal evidence. Again, I am not trying to redefine XML fundamentals on the fly in a few emails, but I think that the issues are more complicated and far reaching than is being admitted here. Thoug again, and even more importantly, this is all quite moot as it is not going to change. erik > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-xml-dev@i... [mailto:owner-xml-dev@i...]On Behalf Of > John Tigue > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 1999 2:04 PM > To: xml-dev > Subject: Re: Attributes vs. text content > > > joubin@i... wrote: > | Consider: > | > | <?xml version="1.0"?> > | <methodCall type="asynchronous"> > | <methodName>xmlbased.cgi.named.foo<methodName> > | // .. etc. > | </methodCall> > | > | v.s. > | > | <?xml version="1.0"?> > | <methodCall> > | </asynchronous> > | <methodName>xmlbased.cgi.named.foo<methodName> > | // .. etc. > | </methodCall> > > > Wouldn't that be: > > <?xml?> > <?version?>1.0<?/version?> > > <methodCall> > </asynchronous> > <methodName>xmlbased.cgi.named.foo<methodName> > // .. etc. > </methodCall> > > > or are pseudo-attibutes ok? > > > /John > > -- > John Tigue > john.tigue@t... > http://www.tigue.com > > > > xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... > Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on > CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 > To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; > (un)subscribe xml-dev > To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the > following message; > subscribe xml-dev-digest > List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...) > > xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
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
|