[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> I see. So generally speaking, explicitly "normalizing" the data is
> mostly beneficial for the processing tools?
Don't forget the biggest (err) tool of all, however, the humans who have
to work with the data! Doesn't it make more sense to model a dictionary
as a set of entries, and an entry is a set of key/value pairs? When you
think "set of" in XML, think "child element"
FWIW, here's what I'd do
<dictionary>
<e>
<key type="...">blabla</key>
<value type="...">foo foo</value>
<e>
</dictionary>
As for e/entry and key/k value/v, that's your choice. I'd add a type
attribute (leaving it out defaults to "string" probably) so that if you
build xml<->data tools you know what you've got. I'd use type as an
attribute, since it is meta-data information about the content.
Cute 'nym.
/r$
--
Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect
DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com
XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
XML Security Overview http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html
|
