[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: attribute order (RE: Syntax Sugar and XML information models)
- From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 06:32:51 -0500
> My view is that fixing any order where none is required is
> gratuitous, taxing and goes against the
> spoonful-of-sugar-helps-the-medicine-go-down principle; with this view,
> allowing arbitrary order is good because it does not require generators to
> (have to worry about code to) sort the attributes in ways redundant for
> naming purposes.
Right, but if you view attributes at "attributes of a type", and
content as "attributes of a type" (syntactic sugar), we get into
a funky world where one asks why you can't specify the ordering
of attributes as you can content. This is kind of where the
SML folk were coming from.
FWIW. I think it would be perfectly reasonable to have a schema
language that had provision for attribute ordering validation,
but I agree that this will almost always be *way* overkill.
I'm actually amazed that SGML is as *usable* as it
is (really!)... when you think of all the alternatives
to unordered attributes, none is anywhere nearly as appealing.