[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> The XML 1.0 well-formedness definition specifically states that
> attributes are unordered, but says nothing about elements.
> This means that technically speaking, a conforming XML parser
> might decide to report the child elements of memo in Listing 1
> in any order.
Good grief!
Bob Foster
Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> Several times when a question on XML design has come up here, I've
> pointed to one of my articles in this series, and the feedback has been
> good, so I thought I'd make a more holistic mention. The latest
> installment is out: "When the order of XML elements matters"
> http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-eleord.html. See
> Copia[1] for more.
>
> The other articles are:
>
> "When to use elements versus attributes"
> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-eleatt.html
> "Use XML namespaces with care"
> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-namcar.html
> "Element structures for names and addresses"
> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-elemdes.html
> "Considering container elements"
> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-contain.html
>
> Also worth mentioning my discussion of ERH's excellent book _Effective
> XML_:
>
> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think25.html
>
> And speaking of ERH, I'm very happy to note that he also has a column
> now on IBM developerWorks:
>
> http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-mxd1.html
>
> I hope folks find all this helpful.
>
> [1] http://copia.ogbuji.net/blog/2005-05-05/Principles
>
|
