Re: XML in core

On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 09:57:48AM +0100, Peter Bienstman wrote:

> Apart from the category stuff, it is slightly different. I think for the 
> common functionality we should standardise as much as possible. I don't 
> really care what the fields are called exactly, so as soon as you've decided 
> on the final format, I'll adapt mine.
> 
> > I was based it on Klemens propose, and Bruno suggestion about short
> > variables. (e.g. "gr" instead of "grade"). Is it ok?
> >
> > Ah, I added <id> field.
> > Should <id> field be protected with <![CDATA[ as well, or maybe it's
> > exaggeration? Well, never know who and what for will use id field in the
> > future.


I agree with everything but I have reservations about the ID field.
I can't put my finger on it ... but somehow it does not look right.

Isn't it a reserved word in XML?

Should'nt it be an attribute of ITEM?

If it is a distinct sub-element, should it not have some attribute (for
categories maybe)

I can't think of any use that would require CDATA in the ID

Sorry, I don't have time today to research these questions ... so all I can
do is raise the issues right now... before you solidify this schema in stone.

Bruno


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive?  Does it
help you create better code?   SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
YOU!  Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/