From: Peter MATTHEWS (matthews_at_melbpc.org.au)
Date: Thu Jan 03 2002 - 20:00:15 CET
Return-Path: <owner-cavexml-outgoing_at_ethz.ch> Delivered-To: cavexml-archive_at_cartography.ch Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id 3AD589C28 for <cavexml-outgoing_at_ethz.ch>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 20:11:54 +0100 (CET) Received: by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0, from userid 28) id 461029C20; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 20:11:51 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id 21F999C28 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 20:11:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from newemu.melbpc.org.au (newemu.melbpc.org.au [203.12.152.25]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id 9F07E9BAE for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 20:11:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from peter.melbpc.org.au (a1-93.melbpc.org.au [203.12.158.93]) by newemu.melbpc.org.au (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA07273 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 06:00:16 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020104055005.01d55ea0@popa.melbpc.org.au> X-Sender: matthews_at_popa.melbpc.org.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 06:00:15 +1100 To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch From: Peter MATTHEWS <matthews_at_melbpc.org.au> Subject: Re: Comments in CaveXML In-Reply-To: <20011231002913.8DBE99BB2_at_karmail.ethz.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-cavexml_at_karmail.ethz.ch Precedence: bulk Reply-To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11
FWIW, some extra thoughts....
I guess there are basically two types of comment - one is a comment about
the survey, and the other is a comment about the data file.
There is also one school of thought in XML which says that fields which
provide data are normally best set as elements, and fields which describe
the data (i.e. metadata) are normally best set as attributes.
On this basis, a comment about the survey would be set as an element, and a
comment about the data file (or part of it) would be set as an attribute.
Just a thought.
Peter
At 18:48 30-12-01 -0500, Richard Knapp wrote:
>Is it worth having Comments with a PCDATA element instead of just an
>attribute with CDATA?
>
>In otherwords, which is better?
>
><!ELEMENT Comment (#PCDATA)>
><!ATTLIST Comment
> xml:lang NMTOKEN #IMPLIED>
>
>or
>
><!ELEMENT Comment EMPTY>
><!ATTLIST Comment
> value CDATA #IMPLED
> xml:lang NMTOKEN #IMPLIED>
>
>The second is more in line with other elements in the structure (Name) so
>it is much easier to code. If
>something very complicated needs to be inserted, it might be better to
>have another element (RAWDATA?)
>that has PCDATA instead of the comment.
>
>Comments? (pun _not_ intended)
>
>
>
> - Richard Knapp
>
>
>_________________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 31 2002 - 23:00:01 CET