RE: [emergency] Re: Circle and Polygon

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@intergraph.com>]

Why avoid attributes?  That is superstitious behavior.

If you name it for it's origin, you will add hundreds of elements. 
If you codelist it, you only have to include that and maintain it. 

Elements have more overhead because their object model has to 
provide for a potentially complicated infoset contribution.  If 
all you need is a limited value such as a name, an attribute is 
a much better choice.

len


From: Tom Merkle [mailto:TMerkle@capwin.org]

I like the element names showing the specific origin of an element name,
such as Art shows below. This removes any doubts as to where the element
origin is from when looking at the XML schema.


From: Art Botterell [mailto:acb@incident.com] 

On Jun 16, 2005, at 6/16/05 7:11 PM, Renato Iannella wrote:
> Perhaps a good compromise is to add explicit (attribute) information 
> that indicates the spatial reference system used by the element, and 
> that it is the external edge?

We've stayed clear of attributes for various reasons, but would it
achieve the same end to name the elements something like <wgs84polygon>
and <wgs84circle>?