maybe because it's easier to write a generic xslt for persisted
datasets if they are all named the same. otherwise one would have to
find a structural pattern to the tree independent of naming to order
anything that came out in this way.
On 12/4/05, Michael Kay <mike(_at_)saxonica(_dot_)com> wrote:
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>
--~--