On 9/27/07, Peter Pentchev <r...@ringlet.net> wrote: > Erm... you do actually know that this - why do the SGML-derived mark-up > languages have both elements and attributes and what should be an > element and what should be an attribute - is an argument (or a religious > war, whichever way you look at it) that has been going for more than a > decade now, right?
I would argue that it is pretty straightforward and that everyone needs to shut up. I would further argue that I have never seen anyone who actually cares to offer an opinion on the matter at all not offer essentially the same basic set of rules. Inherent essential properties are attributes. "Tangible" subsections of an element are subelements. If there's only one of something, it likely needs to be an attribute. If it's the unique ID of some element, it should not be a God damned child element of that element. Finally, I would argue that anyone who thinks that the <font> example I gave in my original message could ever be a remotely good idea needs to get off of computers. Just because there are holy wars about something doesn't make either side of the issue being warred over sacred. One side may very well be stupid and uninformed and just pulling things out of their asses. > G'luck, > Peter > > -- > Peter Pentchev r...@ringlet.net r...@cnsys.bg r...@freebsd.org > PGP key: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc > Key fingerprint FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553 > Do you think anybody has ever had *precisely this thought* before? > >
