>> ... However, I don't see why we shouldn't have attribute and
>> element children of the same element.
>
> I have no particular problem with that, though in general I'd
> choose for elements, which are easier to evolve to complexType-s.
Well, me either, but I don't think we should ban complex types, sometimes they're useful.
Personally I much prefer
<tagOne attribOne="valueOne">valueTwo</tagOne>
or
<tagOne attribOne="valueOne" attribTwo="valueTwo" />
depending on the relative importance of the concepts to,
<tagOne>
<tagTwo>valueOne</tagTwo>
<tagThree>valueTwo</tagThree>
</tagOne>
which I think is overly verbose, and I'd actually prefer
<tagOne>
valueOne
<tagTwo>valueTwo</tagTwo>
</tagOne>
to that. But all of this is a style issue, it's about how people think about concepts. All 4 of these are valid XML, and all 4 of them can be serialised to valid SOAP. So what's the problem again?
Al. Received on 2006-09-15Z13:46:14