On 9/27/07, tgies <tg...@tgies.net> wrote: > 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.
Hear hear. From what ive seen the "attributes are evil use tags" crowd usually justify their position by essentially stating that they are crap schema designers who want to cover up for their lack of foresightedness and planning and design skills by ensuring that they will have every opportunity in the future to correct things. Which is like a building designer putting all the wiring on the outside of the walls because just maybe sometime in the future somebody will want to put a socket somewhere unanticipated. Well, fucking do it right the first time damnit. Thats what "design" is for. Cheers, yves ps: I have a headache, so there may be more vitriol in this post than is strictly necessary. -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
