[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Citat James Fuller <jim.fuller@ruminate.co.uk>:
> Bryan Rasmussen wrote:
>
> >However reading the KML (Keyhole Markup Language) spec I came across this:
> >
> >There are two basic types of KML tags: simple and complex. Complex tags
> are
> >easily identified by an initial upper case letter, while simple tags use
> all
> >lower case. Complex tags can function as Parent Tags to both complex and
> simple
> >tags, while simple tags are children only and can contain no other tags.
> >
> >
> this is maybe hard to maintain over time...and realistically this
> information should be conveyed through relation to a schema (IMHO)
>
There are two places this can be useful.
1. in looking at a schema itself and an element is referenced, by the name we
can see if it is simple or complex. (taking the kml definitions of complex and
simple)
2. in looking at an example instance, especially if a format is a document style
format, with mixed content abounding.
>
> - make clear and semantically correct element/attributes names,
> obscuring this with acronyms or with some code convention is reducing
> the value of marking up structure, likewise embedding such a convention
> will be hard to maintain
I agree, but large organizations seem to be enamoured of naming rules for
managing large schema collections.
> - reduce keystrokes....I avoid camelhumps or capitals and tend to use
> indenting as primary mechanism for making things easier to read
>
If only everyone did this. but it seems xml has gone the way of camel casing.
--
Bryan Rasmussen
|
