[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Quoting "DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO)" <bob.ducharme@lexisnexis.com>:
> Quoting Ian Graham:
>
> >Quoting Xasima Xirohata <xasima@gmail.com>:
>
> >> I wonder why the order of attributes doesn't matter in XML 1.0...
>
> >This characteristic of attributes is inherited by necessity from SGML:
>
> >XML 1.0 was derived (if that >is the right word) from SGML, such that
> >XML 1.0 data could be correctly processed by SGML processors.
>
> >So to find a written reason for this language design choice, you'd need
> >to look back to the roots of SGML.
>
> I think the general idea is that if the ordering of pieces of
> information associated with an element matter to an application, then
> they should be declared in the content model as child elements, where
> you have various regular-expression-like options for describing ordering
> options.
I agree with this interpretation, but it does not explain _why_ attribute order
is explicitly not relevant.
I, like you, just take this as a done deal (recalling the SGML legacy
requirements, plus the fact it doesn't to me seem a big issue ;-)). But if
Xasima Xirohata wants the underlying reason for this choice, then I suspect the
answer lies deep in the origins / design of SGML.
|
