Lists Home |
Date Index |
Arjun Ray scripsit:
> 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.
I am not treating it as immutable, nor worthy of sanction. I simply say
that a design which ignores it will not fly.
> (Also, isn't DSDL in the picture here? Why then is just the current state
> of only the "XML community" decisive?)
AFAIK all known DSDL parts are XML-related.
> | 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. ;-)
Are you asking for my *personal* views?
> 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.
If current practice is disregarded, we are writing for the trunk, something
I have no desire to do.
> | 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 didn't say "identical", I said "as identical as possible".
> 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.
I don't intend to be in the business of legislating how programmers and
document designers do their jobs. Sharp tools cut.
John Cowan <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_