Re: Position Paper on List Containers

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

whilst i agree there is advantage in supporting the use of a ubiquitous 
web browser, you give the impression  we don't have this ability otherwise.

if you examine the diagram below you will see the example Invoice 
instance (collapsed down to the highest meaningful level) as shown in 
Internet Explorer.

[invoice-nolist-view.jpg]

this reflects the current schemas we are producing without any list 
containers.

the next diagram shows the  same view with the same instance using the 
'all lists' schema...

[invoice-list-view.jpg]

- if we click on the <in:InvoiceLineList> "+" we get the following view...

[invoice-list-lines-view.jpg]

This demonstrates the comparitive differences we are discussing.  How 
much advantage does the extra level give us? I don't want anyone to 
think using list conatiners is the only way to benefit from a folding 
editor/XML view.  both strategies enable us to expand and collapse - 
lists just give us additional layers.


jon.bosak@sun.com wrote:

>| In section 6, you mention readability.  If you read XML documents
>| using Notepad or vi, container elements do not help readability.
>| However, if you use a folding XML editor/viewer, even Internet
>| Explorer, containers are great for folding up a repeated group of
>| elements that you do not want to look at.  You do not need
>| hundreds, nor even thousands, of items for this to be true.
>
>This is a *huge* UI advantage.  Giving every user the ability to
>open a big UBL instance in a ubiquitous web browser and
>collapse/expand to find her way around is enough all by itself to
>make a case for containers.
>
>Jon
>
>  
>

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228  
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160