xml-dev - Re: Attributes vs. text content (Was Re: RFC: Attributes and XML-RPC)

["joubin" <joubin@inch.com>]

I am not why HTML programmers would find attributes confusing:  They must
have seen plenty of <A HREF="http://xyz.com">ABC</a> 's, so an attribute
shouldn't be too much of a shock to their system.

Also,

If, as a matter of convention, one (only) uses attributes to convey element
metainfo (i.e. information _about_ the element) then, in fact, you would
have a much more coherent document (cum protocol) with clear distinction
between information and meta-information.


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>

The latter mixes info and metainfo.  Not a good strategy, IMO, in long haul;
specially if one is aiming for simplicity, and clarity.


Don Park wrote:
> It is true that attributes are redundant
> in a sense but they are far from
> useless.


It would be more correct to say that "attributes [could be] redundant".
They don't have to be.


So lets not get rid of attributes and start writing things like:

<a>
  <href>http://www.xyz.com</href>
  ABC
</a>

I wager most HTML 'programmers' would find _that_ confusing.


Joubin
_____________________________________________________________________
member, alpha zero LLC              202.462.1655                   dc



xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
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@ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)