Hi,
If we non-xml-gurus can be of any help, and have a vote, i would say , irrespectively of how automated parsers, etc... handle the things, either you always use the "condensed style" (which have my favor):
<tagOne attribOne="valueOne" attribTwo="valueTwo" />
or the "structured verbose formatted style":
<tagOne>
<tagTwo>valueOne</tagTwo>
<tagThree>valueTwo</tagThree>
</tagOne>
but never never never mixed-ups.
I know xml is not made to be human-readable but i begin see too much of it recently ;-) , so let's make it at least not human-unreadable.
Best,
Gilles
Alasdair Allan wrote:
>
>>> ... 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.
>
>