My understanding is that you're talking about using a generic XML format
to represent a generic record format, kind of like this:
<csvFile>
value1<comma/>value2<comma/>value3<comma/>value4<newLine/>
value5<comma/>value6<comma/>value7<comma/>value8<newLine/>
value9<comma/>value10<comma/>value11<comma/>value12<newLine/>
</csvFile>
But seriously, the two objections I care about that recommend against
the following XML design:
<div class="monty">
<span class="python"/>
</div>
Are that it's harder to meaningfully validate using DTD or XSD, and that
it's using the XHTML document format to hold something that's not really
a web page at heart (though there may not be enough context here to
illustrate this often complex and posssibly subjective point).
The design
---->N
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kay [mailto:mike(_at_)saxonica(_dot_)com]
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 12:47 AM
To: xsl-list(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com
Subject: RE: [xsl] Re: XSLT Transformation .NET
Didn't anyone ever mention in the
microsoft camp there that xml elements named as field names is a bad
idea? That it is a much more useful source if the xml elements are
all named the same?
Oddly, over on xml-dev people are busy complaining about
formats that do
<div class="monty">
<span class="python"/>
</div
rather than
<monty><python/></monty>
Why do you think it's bad to use field names as element names?
Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail:
<mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--