=?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_=5Bxml=2Ddev=5D_Don=E2=80=99t_create_elements_with

I guess if the Cost were extended with child elements then the attribute name would lose the specificity of what it is labelling.

On Friday, 28 September 2018, Stephen D Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Roger

Why in your philosophy is an element name a label but an attribute name not a label?

Regards
Stephen D Green

On Friday, 28 September 2018, Costello, Roger L. <costello@mitre.org> wrote:

Hi Folks,

Thank you for the excellent replies.

Based on the replies, I see that I did a poor job explaining my position. Let me try again, please.

I am not arguing against attributes.

I am arguing against unlabeled data.

All of the following forms are good because they explicitly label the two pieces of data (USD and 8.95):

<Cost>
    <Currency>USD</Currency>
    <Amount>8.95</Amount>
</Cost>

<Cost currency="USD" amount="8.95" />

<Cost currency="USD">
    <Amount>8.95</Amount>
</Cost>

<Cost amount="8.95">
    <Currency>USD</Currency>
</Cost>

It matters not whether the label is in the form of an attribute or an element.

I am arguing that the following is bad because one piece of data (8.95) is not explicitly labeled:

<Cost currency="USD">8.95</Cost>

You might argue that 8.95 is labeled and the label is Cost. I disagree. I argue that Cost applies to the entire element (including the currency attribute); it does not specifically apply to 8.95.

As a result of the absence of an explicit label for 8.95, it is impossible to convert that form to an element-only form without human intervention. For example, a couple days ago one human suggested that 8.95 be labeled with “Amount” like so:

<Cost>
    <Currency>USD</Currency>
    <Amount>8.95</Amount>
</Cost>

This need to get humans involved to convert to an element-only form is bad, I argue.

Comments?

/Roger

--
----
Stephen D Green