Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Paul Tchistopolskii <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 17:54:35 -0800
> <notice>If the following makes you laugh, that's OK with me.</notice>
> Everything inside a start tag declares attribute values, including the
> tag name. The tag name is accurately regarded as the value of the
> element's one and only nameless attribute. Every element must have a
> value for its nameless attribute -- even SML elements.
> The value of the nameless attribute (the "tag name" or "generic
> identifier") is only minimally constrained; it can be can be almost
> any token, and its value can be used for any application-defined
> purpose whatsoever.
> Therefore, if anyone thinks SML can be made to work entirely without
> attributes, they should think again. Attributes are of the essence of
> markup, and you can't get rid of them entirely.
> Since we can't get rid of them entirely, where should SML draw the line,
> and why?
Because avoiding the difference between attributes and elements
simplifyes the addressing and *every* realted API ( Xpath, Xslt, DOM,
XQL e t.c. ) a *lot* + it avoids 'multiple levels of encoding' problems e t.c.
> Personally, I'm not easily persuaded that parsing an "=" sign is so
> very difficult that it deserves to be discarded in the name of
This is not a problem. The problem is on the next level of
framework, when we should care about attributes/elements.
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)