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

RE: A standard approach to glueing together reusableXML frag

• To: 'Jeff Tash' <tash@f...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: A standard approach to glueing together reusableXML fragments in prose?
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 08:41:47 -0500

---- Start SpamAssassin results
9.20 points, 7 required;
*  1.0 -- BODY: HTML included in message
*  7.0 -- BODY: HTML with embedded plugin object
*  0.1 -- BODY: HTML font color is blue
*  1.1 -- BODY: Message is 40% to 50% HTML

---- End of SpamAssassin results

The original message did not contain plain text, and may be unsafe to
open with some email clients; in particular, it may contain a virus,
or confirm that your address can receive spam.  If you wish to view
it, it may be safer to save it to a file and open it with an editor.

--- Begin Message ---

• To: 'Jeff Tash' <tash@f...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: A standard approach to glueing together reusableXML fragments in prose?
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 08:41:47 -0500

Not exactly.   One has to decide when mapping out of an information system of a different type using XML which properties one must preserve losslessly, and then the choice of elements vs attributes is not arbitrary.  I gave an example of that in a different email when comparing object oriented design where fields can have objects to XML design where attributes cannot have elements.  At first, these appear to be incompatible, then pushing the containment relationship of fields and objects to the elements and the description up one metalevel, <object><field><object></object></field></object>, one can make it work.  Going in the other direction and keeping the mapping of fields to elements introduces microparsing and hiding types inside the attribute values.  It is semantically messy, but that is the choice some make to keep the XML encoding looking as much like the object oriented encoding as possible.   Loose, yes, but not arbitrary.  One does have to understand, for example, the structural constraints of XML.   le From: Jeff Tash [mailto:tash@f...] For instance, the choice between when to use elements versus when to use attributes is essentially arbitrary.

--- End Message ---

• Prev by Date: Re: xml taxonomy
• Next by Date: Re: xml taxonomy
• Previous by thread: RE: A standard approach to glueing together reusableXML fragments in prose?
• Next by thread: Re: XML CMM and ISO9000 compliance? - was A standard approach to glueing together reusableXML fragments in prose?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread