On 9/27/07, Adam Atlas <a...@atlas.st> wrote: > On 27 Sep 2007, at 13:33, Sean Conner wrote: > > > So, you're saying you would rather have: > > > > [...] > > > > Ick. Or does it go: > > > > [...] > > > > Ick indeed! > > I think a decent rule of thumb is that attributes are for parameters > that are not displayed to the user directly, while sub-elements are > for structuring content that is displayed. Attributes can affect the > display, of course, but their raw content should (usually) not be.
I think that the rule of thumb expressed earlier by tgies is a better one. When a piece of data is an inherent property of a tag, which cannot have children, then it should be an attribute. When it can have children of its own then it should be a tag. I don't buy the "its all the same" argument. Its not. Tags are containers which can contain other containers, attributes are inherent properties of the tag to which they belong. Anyway, XML is hateful, full stop. We are just quibbling over the exact extent and nature of the hate. :-) Yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
