On 08.04.11 15:46, "Omid" <omil...@gmail.com> wrote: >Sure it's not something that must be this way. I solved this by moving >map2 ones into a new child node so they became like map2/@key=value. >But why forcing the structure if there's nothing against enabling >patterns? I guess this pattern of naming nodes & properties is used a >lot (for map-like access in browsing), and now if we want different >types for two maps they should be separated into two nodes.
You can use residual properties "*" and have different types for each property, on demand. I understand your reasoning, but from experience I can tell you, if you go "partially" unstructured, go the whole way. Whenever you come up with a new "map-something" property pattern, you have to update your node types. With fully unstructured nodes you don't. Regards, Alex -- Alexander Klimetschek Developer // Adobe (Day) // Berlin - Basel
