[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
danny666@virgilio.it (Danny Ayers) writes:
>I'm curious Simon (or anyone) about how you would go about improving
>the representation of keys & values (or modelling when the solution
>seems to suggest keys & values).
Most of the key/value situations I've seen have fixed sets of keys, or
at least as fixed as most markup vocabularies.
So instead of:
<add key="a" value="1"/>
<add key="b" value="2"/>
I'd prefer something like:
<add>
<a>1</a>
<b>2</b>
</add>
Even where the keys aren't fixed, I still prefer this model. It leaves
open the prospect of structured values, which are pretty common in the
hashmaps I work with, and it's not that much harder to process.
It's harder to write a schema for this if you're one of those people who
insist on nailing everything to the floor, but I guess I have little
sympathy for those folks. If the information is flexible, the schema
should keep up, and hiding structure in attribute values seems like a
lousy hack given XML's focus on labeled structures.
But hey, if it's just a serialization, why should anyone care?
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
