Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Skill question

Expand Messages
  • Frugal
    Is there a particular reason why the boolean flags useuntrained , acheck , and excusive are all tags with the content as text rather than attributes where
    Message 1 of 4 , Nov 6, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Is there a particular reason why the boolean flags 'useuntrained',
      'acheck', and 'excusive' are all tags with the content as text rather than
      attributes where we can constrain them to be booleans ?

      --
      regards,
      Frugal
      -OS Chimp
    • Keith Davies
      ... Historical reasons . Tir wants a minimal learning curve for those new to XML, so everything possible is a child element. Also, a first pass converter
      Message 2 of 4 , Nov 6, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 10:36:14AM +0000, Frugal wrote:
        >
        > Is there a particular reason why the boolean flags 'useuntrained',
        > 'acheck', and 'excusive' are all tags with the content as text rather than
        > attributes where we can constrain them to be booleans ?

        'Historical reasons'. Tir wants a 'minimal learning curve' for those
        new to XML, so everything possible is a child element. Also, a first
        pass converter I wrote just dumped everything to child elements without
        trying to guess whether it'd be better as an attribute or element.

        The values you're talking about should, I agree, be attributes.


        Keith
        --
        Keith Davies "Your ability to bang your head against
        keith.davies@... reality in the hope that reality will
        crack first is impressive, but futile"
        -- Geoffrey Brent, rec.games.frp.dnd
      • Frugal
        ... Did the set of docs dated xml-20030317.zip come after this point ? They have a lot of attributes for prereqs. -- regards, Frugal
        Message 3 of 4 , Nov 6, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          <quote who="Keith Davies">
          > 'Historical reasons'. Tir wants a 'minimal learning curve' for those
          > new to XML, so everything possible is a child element. Also, a first
          > pass converter I wrote just dumped everything to child elements without
          > trying to guess whether it'd be better as an attribute or element.

          Did the set of docs dated xml-20030317.zip come after this point ? They
          have a lot of attributes for prereqs.

          --
          regards,
          Frugal
          -OS Chimp
        • Keith Davies
          ... I don t remember, to be honest. I was planning to rework prereqs altogether -- make them more regular and so on. So far, I think I ve got it down to a
          Message 4 of 4 , Nov 6, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 02:35:38PM +0000, Frugal wrote:
            >
            > <quote who="Keith Davies">
            > > 'Historical reasons'. Tir wants a 'minimal learning curve' for those
            > > new to XML, so everything possible is a child element. Also, a first
            > > pass converter I wrote just dumped everything to child elements without
            > > trying to guess whether it'd be better as an attribute or element.
            >
            > Did the set of docs dated xml-20030317.zip come after this point ? They
            > have a lot of attributes for prereqs.

            I don't remember, to be honest. I was planning to rework prereqs
            altogether -- make them more regular and so on. So far, I think I've
            got it down to a single element, using attributes. I wanted to get away
            from PRETHING, PRETHINGLT, etc.


            Keith
            --
            Keith Davies "Your ability to bang your head against
            keith.davies@... reality in the hope that reality will
            crack first is impressive, but futile"
            -- Geoffrey Brent, rec.games.frp.dnd
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.