I agree with Mr. Tobin .. I would imagine elements as
objects, and attributes as the object's properties. I
think(IHMO) the object's properties are not supposed
to be ordered (so should attributes)..
Regards,
Mukul
--- Richard Tobin <> wrote:
> No, because that's not what attributes are for. The
> attributes of an
> element are uniquely identified by their names, and
> the children are
> not. The semantics of an attribute depends on its
> name, not its
> position within the start tag.
>
> You can write down a matrix of the properties of
> attributes and child
> elements: whether they are named, whether their
> order is significant,
> whether they have recursive structure (it helps to
> have several dimensions
> to write in :-). The three I listed give you 8
> possible combinations;
> XML (and SGML) only provide two of them, but they
> are two that cover
> a lot of useful cases.
>
> >More practically, if a parser guarantees reporting
> attributes to the
> >application in their order of occurrence in a
> document, would this be a
> >reason to declare the parser incompliant with XML
> 1.0?
>
> No, of course not. An XML editor is the obvious
> example of an
> application that can benefit from that information.
> But an XML editor
> does not use an XML document for its semantics.
>
> -- Richard
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org
> <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at
> http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the
> subscription
> manager:
> <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
>
>
Discover Yahoo!
Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html
