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

Re: malfunctioning, evil adult as XML

• To: Andrew Layman <andrewl@m...>
• Subject: Re: malfunctioning, evil adult as XML
• From: Bill de hÓra <bill@d...>
• Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 14:03:01 +0000
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• References: <9B9A5456AFE99E4181416B252F63BDA207C4BBDA@r...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826

Andrew Layman wrote:

> The obvious syntactic device (in a future version of XML) for a
> structured attribute is something that looks much like an element, e.g.
> 
> <Poem>
>   <@title>Paradise Lost</@title>
>   <@author>
>     <@birth>1608</@birth>
>     <@death>1674</@death>
>     John Milton
>   </@author>
>   Of Man's First Disobedience and the Fruit 
>   Of that Forbidden Tree, whose mortal tast
>   Brought Death into the World, and all our woe,
>   With loss of Eden, till one greater Man
>   Restore us, and regain the blissful Seat,
>   Sing Heav'nly Muse ...
> </Poem>

By using an attribute or a PI to indicate an element is a structured 
attribute, there's no need for a syntactic extension. That is if 
we're sure we need structured attributes at all.

Bill de hÓra

• Prev by Date: Re: malfunctioning, evil adult as XML
• Next by Date: Re: The patron saints of XML WAS: Are There URIs in Heaven?
• Previous by thread: Re: malfunctioning, evil adult as XML
• Next by thread: Re: malfunctioning, evil adult as XML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread