[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] Re: Circle and Polygon
Your analysis is correct, Winnie. I'm a wonk from the days when ISO 8879 was a draft and fought in the "HTML didn't get it all right" wars. Forgive me for being tendentious. Given the choices at the time, XSD was the right technology. If done over again, I'd take a hard look at alternatives such as RELAX NG and Schematron, and the new ISO standards for this. <offtopic> Atts are typically used for the domain or for singleton primtive types such as ID that the XML processor must enforce. Precisely as you say. Avoiding attributes is one of those myths propagated in the early part of the XML development when the parserGorillas dominated the savannah. It's an old and well documented topic. They do create an impedance mismatch with object-oriented systems that serialize and deserialize if the developer wrongly believes that object fields and element attributes are isomorphic. It was a major stumbling block for X3D specification work because it took the OOPMen a very long time to accept that. VRML was a pure object-oriented design. Where rendering and behavioral fidelity are equally important, the markup design has to be subordinate to the object design. It isn't unusual to find multiple encodings for those kinds of specs. </offtopic> len From: Winfield Wagner [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Claude Bullard: You are correct on your analysis. You have to forgive me on the fact coming from the GJXDM world I have been brain washed into thinking XSD. Before my GJXDM days and today I would use the attribute method for solving the reference system identity situation. It is describer for the domain of the element not a real world element in itself. This has been a very sticky point in GJXDM. Many of elements are descriptive variations that define a context of an element (how it is referenced in a domain) rather than a real world element.