Lists Home |
Date Index |
John Cowan <email@example.com> wrote:
| Arjun Ray scripsit:
| The practice of the XML community has been overwhelmingly to grant the
| GI fundamental importance: fulminating against this sociological fact
| will not make it go away.
A sociological fact is one thing. Deeming it immutable and more, worthy
of sanction in the form of a standard to enforce it, is another.
(Also, isn't DSDL in the picture here? Why then is just the current state
of only the "XML community" decisive?)
|> I suppose I'm also asking for an answer to the issue of "ontology" I
|> raised earlier: what are attributes for?
| There simply does not exist any generally accepted view of when attributes
| should be used rather than child elements.
I note that you dodged the question again. ;-)
| Therefore, it is important for a neutrally usable schema language to
| support them as identically as possible,
I don't see how neutrality is important, unless it is established policy
to bless what appears to be current practice, no matter how ill-informed.
| excepting the obvious (attributes are unordered and can't contain elements
| or other attributes).
So, if they are different, why the push for identical treatment? I also
note (in view of a recent thread) that it seems to be a common maturation
experience to grow from attribute-happy to element-wise. I don't see how
making potentially unwise decisions even easier than they are would make
experience acquired any less painful.