A little note re: the attribute comment below: at some point, I'm probably
going to start a gentle push to *not* use XML attributes at all. Consider
that attributes can be child elements with a simple transform:
The interesting point is that a child element is *much* more flexible than
an attribute. Elements can hold structured data, they can be extended, etc.
Attributes can only be a simple string. Read: less flexible, harsher upgrade
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 08:27:46AM -0500, Karl Fogel wrote:
> Yes, I just forgot the DTD. Ignore my worries from earlier.
> Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
> > I wrote:
> > >> What precisely are you anticipating here? I don't see how it would
> > >> make sense to put anything directly in the pcdata of a prop-delta.
> > Karl wrote:
> > > If a prop change includes binary data, how would we encode it as an
> > > attribute? Or, even if encoding random binary data as XML attribute
> > > values is legal (which I don't know but could be the case), what if
> > > the prop change is *huge*? What if someone's sending a GIF image as
> > > the value of the property?
> > [and a bunch of other stuff, which I understood but which is also
> > beside the point]
> > Right now a prop-delta looks like this:
> > <prop-delta>
> > <set name="foo">bar</set>
> > <delete name="baz"/>
> > </prop-delta>
> > So we already put property values in pcdata, but not the pcdata of the
> > prop-delta element. (And the pcdata of the set element is already
> > protected.)
> > I don't see how it would ever make sense to put anything in the pcdata
> > of the prop-delta element itself; you wouldn't know which property you
> > were modifying.
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:12 2006