Problems about the Spectrum Data Model from the view of a Web Service programmer

[Gilles DUVERT]

Hi,

If we non-xml-gurus can be of any help, and have a vote, i would say , 
irrespectively of how automated parsers, etc... handle the things,
either you always use the "condensed style" (which have my favor):

<tagOne attribOne="valueOne" attribTwo="valueTwo" />

or the "structured verbose formatted style":

<tagOne>
   <tagTwo>valueOne</tagTwo>
   <tagThree>valueTwo</tagThree>
</tagOne>
 
but never never never mixed-ups.

I know xml is not made to be human-readable but i begin see too much of 
it recently ;-) , so let's make it at least not human-unreadable.

Best,

Gilles


Alasdair Allan wrote:
>
>>> ... However, I don't see why we shouldn't have attribute and element 
>>> children of the same element.
>>
>> I have no particular problem with that, though in general I'd choose 
>> for elements, which are easier to evolve to complexType-s.
>
> Well, me either, but I don't think we should ban complex types, 
> sometimes they're useful.
>
> Personally I much prefer
>
> <tagOne attribOne="valueOne">valueTwo</tagOne>
>
> or
>
> <tagOne attribOne="valueOne" attribTwo="valueTwo" />
>
> depending on the relative importance of the concepts to,
>
> <tagOne>
>    <tagTwo>valueOne</tagTwo>
>    <tagThree>valueTwo</tagThree>
> </tagOne>
>
> which I think is overly verbose, and I'd actually prefer
>
> <tagOne>
>    valueOne
>    <tagTwo>valueTwo</tagTwo>
> </tagOne>
>
> to that. But all of this is a style issue, it's about how people think 
> about concepts. All 4 of these are valid XML, and all 4 of them can be 
> serialised to valid SOAP. So what's the problem again?
>
> Al.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Gilles.Duvert.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 382 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.ivoa.net/pipermail/dm/attachments/20060915/04b1fafa/attachment-0001.vcf>