Lists Home |
Date Index |
If the properties are simple enough, a set of required attributes would
do the trick, as these are meant to be unordered.
Carlos Pita wrote:
>In my case, the user will enter a subset from
>a considerable number of properties and
>order is not significative. So although
>the properties are simple and intuitive per se
>and the user has no no need to specify
>or even know the entire set, there is
>no natural ordering between them, so
>imposing an ordering seems undesirable
>to me and forces the user to put an eye
>on the xml editor and the other in
>a detailed element order specification.
>A lot has been written in favor
>of more declarative lenguages that do not
>or try to not impose constraints unrelated
>to the problem domain. Also, in this case
>it will be harder neither for users nor
>for programs to read/validate the "unordered"
>properties cause no one has any kind of
>semantic dependence on the value of any other.
>They can all be understood / processed
>independently. Well, anyway it's not SO
>important. Perhaps I would switch to relax
>>>It's actually not a favor to users to allow unconstrained order where
>>>order doesn't matter, e.g., in 'data records'.
>>I think that's a matter of opinion and it's an area where the document
>>designer should not be constrained by what the tools allow and don't allow.
>>My own recent experience of creating documents whose schema imposed an order
>>that I found unnatural and impossible to remember was a very negative one. I
>>actually ended up editing without a schema and writing a stylesheet to put
>>the fields into the required order.
>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