Gerard wrote:
> I think irrespective of this, we might in the IVOA attempt to not
> use mixed
> content in serialisations of data and metadata simply beacues of
> examples as
> Alasdair mentions.
Actually I was arguing precisely the opposite point, I don't really see anything wrong with mixed content.
> We can do without and it will be much simpler to
> transform between different representations (code, databasesof a given
> underlying model if every data element is explcitily named.
Every data element is explicitly named in both examples I gave you.
> Mixed content will allow things that are hard to make sense of in an
> automated fashion, like
>
> <tag1>34<tag2>35</tag2>36<tag3>hello</tag3>76</tag1>
Err, no that's easier to make sense of in an automated fashion than it is to read, although re-arranging your example into a more human parsable version, it's perfectly easy to understand as well...
<tag1>
34 36 76
<tag2>35</tag2>
<tag3>hello</tag3>
</tag1>
In other words,
tag1 = [ 34, 36, 76 ] tag1.tag2 = 35 tag1.tag3 = hello
> Such mixed content is fine fore (X)HTML documents, but imho should be
> avoided if possible for serialisations that are to be read by
> machines.
Why? I don't understand why you'd find the above ambiguous?
Al. Received on 2006-09-15Z12:44:04