RE: [xsl] Re: XSLT Transformation .NET

Subject: RE: [xsl] Re: XSLT Transformation .NET
From: "Nathan Young -X \(natyoung - Artizen at Cisco\)" <natyoung@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 13:27:19 -0800
My understanding is that you're talking about using a generic XML format
to represent a generic record format, kind of like this:


But seriously, the two objections I care about that recommend against
the following XML design:

<div class="monty">
  <span class="python"/>

Are that it's harder to meaningfully validate using DTD or XSD, and that
it's using the XHTML document format to hold something that's not really
a web page at heart (though there may not be enough context here to
illustrate this often complex and posssibly subjective point).

The design


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Kay [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 12:47 AM
> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [xsl] Re: XSLT Transformation .NET
> > Didn't anyone ever mention in the
> > microsoft camp there that xml elements named as field names is a bad
> > idea?  That it is a much more useful source if the xml elements are
> > all named the same?
> Oddly, over on xml-dev people are busy complaining about
> formats that do
> <div class="monty">
>   <span class="python"/>
> </div
> rather than
> <monty><python/></monty>
> Why do you think it's bad to use field names as element names?
> Michael Kay

Current Thread