[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
My comments will be on the proposed approaches, and I'm sure that others
will comment on SAX (takes me back to my days of breakpointing an OS and
verifying the set/cleared bits in the registers):
First, a question: Do you really need to work at the binary level?
Having said that:
Cases 1 and 2: Although these represent a possible approach, the issue I
see is that they do "more work" than is necessary - that is, they not
only list the flags, but a Boolean value of "true". If you really need
to list the Boolean value for the set flags, you might as well list all
flags, with a value of "false" for those that are cleared. Otherwise,
the best approach is (in general, separate from synxtax) to list only
the flags.
Case 3: Would not recommend, as you are using empty elements to
represent data, which is not generally considered to be a sound approach
(elements should represent metadata about the data).
Case 4: If you list the base 10 equivalent of the binary value, there
should be no reason to list the individual flags - as with Cases 1 and
2, this is more work than necessary. If the receiving system can convert
(or can be made to convert) a base 10 number into its equivalent binary
representation, than simply providing the base 10 representation should
be enough.
Case 5: Did not see any value in mixing fonts with the numeric values
here.
Kind Regards,
Joe Chiusano
Booz | Allen | Hamilton
Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World
Ronald Kent Gibson wrote:
>
> Dear All
>
> A general question and a specific one.
>
> Someone once told me that you should only used attributes when you know that
> you will never need another attribute. (Case 1)
>
> And then I read somewhere to forget about attributes except for the
> exception of an id attribute. (Case 2)
>
> Does anyone care to comment and clarify this.
>
> And to add a specific question.
>
> I want to define a set of 64 bit flags, and I want to only define ones that
> are true.
>
> What do you reckon is the best ways to do this:
>
> Case 1
>
> <x flag0="true" flag4="true"/>
>
> or
>
> Case 2
>
> <x>
> <flag0>true</flag0>
> <flag4>true</flag4>
> </x>
>
> or something like:
>
> Case 3
>
> <Flags><2></2><7></7><18></18></Flags>
>
> or
>
> Case 4
>
> <Flags Value="20"> <!- Binary 10100 -->
> <flag3/>
> <flag5/>
> </Flags>
>
> or
>
> Case 5
>
> <FlagDef>
> <Serif>2</Serif>
> <Italic>7</Italic>
> <SmallCap>18</SmallCap>
> </FlagDef>
>
> <Flags Value="9">
> <Serif>true</Serif>
> <Italic>true</Italic>
> </Flags>
>
> or something better? Can anyone see any problems with any of the
> propositions?
>
> I would like the resulting XML to be easy to parse and to transform ( ie not
> tricky xpath or recursion required).
>
> I haven't decided whether to use events such as those found in sax.
>
> any comments or suggestions would be gladly appreciated.
>
> regards
>
> kent gibson
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
|
