[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Sure, but if you get the namespace support from
the tool for free, why resort to the period hack
(well known from the old Oster system)?
My assumption based on the issue being XML design
is that the designer has modularized the vocabularies
for all the usual reasons, and now the tool reflects
that in some way. The attribute version assumes
the vocabulary is not modularized, or at least, not
for that property. Of course, the attribute reflects
the semantic (it is a manufacturer) and the namespace
only reflects the vocabulary and assumes the user
knows this is a sign for the manufacturer.
len
From: Bill de hOra [mailto:bill@dehora.net]
Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote:
> There is an abvious difference here, but how about between
>
> <nikon:lens/>
>
> and
>
> <lens manufacturer="Nikon"/>
>
> ?
>
> The information content is the same right?
I was about to offer:
<nikon.lens>
as I thought Len was talking about visual cues to users rather than
information capture. But I like the attribute approach better. Fwiw,
there seems to be more (explicit) information with the attribute (if
you look at it in an RDFish way as <subject property="value"/>.
There's also opportunity to do searches and sorts with such attributes.
|
