Re: Was: [xsl] mode and moved to Namespaces

Subject: Re: Was: [xsl] mode and moved to Namespaces
From: Michael Müller-Hillebrand <mmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:08:06 +0200
Am 18.04.2011 um 07:16 schrieb ac:

>  Yes I can create a dictionary like
> <dic>
> <word>
> <instance xml:lang="en" gender="m">Mr</instance>
> <instance xml:lang="en" gender="f">Mrs</instance>
> <instance xml:lang="fr" gender="m">M.</instance>
> <instance xml:lang="fr" gender="f">Mme</instance>
>        ...
> </word>
> </dic>
> but, given the proper namespace declarations, I could also have it as
> <dic>
> <word en:instance="Mr" en-f:instance="Mrs" fr:instance="M."
fr-f:instance="Mme" ... />
>    ...
> </dic>

IMO this is a good example why the perceived verbosity of some XML is a good
thing. Regarding flexibility and future maintenance the first version has
clear advantages: It requires almost no effort to add more languages, or more
genders (if needed) or other attributes to the dictionary if needed, while the
second version needs rules how to create new namespace names (and an expanded
name for each) and requires updates to the validation schema for each change.

I would rank maintainability if XML sources far higher than the number of
nodes. Regarding performance of XSLT processors I dont think there is a
difference if the correct keys are defined.

- Michael

Michael M|ller-Hillebrand: Dokumentation Technology
Adobe Certified Expert, FrameMaker
Consulting and Training, FrameScript, XML/XSL, Unicode
Blog [de]:

Current Thread