Re: Attributes implies (to me) an inherent property

Post #12,687 by admin 10/10/01 2:43:11 PM Reply	Re: Attributes implies (to me) an inherent property <ATOM> <NAME>Somethinium, I don't have a periodic table in front of me</NAME> <ATOMICWEIGHT>23</ATOMICWEIGHT> <BOILINGPOINT units="Celcius">125</BOILINGPOINT> </ATOM> Which should be an attribute...? Regards, -scott anderson
Post #12,692 by Another Scott 10/10/01 3:08:37 PM Reply	Sodium. Glad to help. :-)
Post #12,753 by cforde 10/10/01 7:05:35 PM Reply	Attribute I think the name should be an attribute. The element values are particular to the thing that is named. The relationship in my mind is "if I were to put this into a table, which column(s) would comprise the primary key". Those become attributes to the tag. The rest become elements within it (data about the primary key). 3rd normal XML anyone? Have fun, Carl Forde
Post #12,868 by drewk 10/11/01 10:04:33 AM Reply	I'll agree with Carl here The idea that the XML analogue to a primary key would become an attribute and everything else is elements. Hmm, wait. I guess it sort of depends. Okay, here's what I really think. No, wait, that isn't it either. (Damn.) What I was thinking was that anything there can be only one of -- an atom can only have one atomic weight, one name -- is an attribute. Then the elements would be however many protons, neutrons and electrons. Each of those would have as elements their size, charge, etc., and would have as elements the number of quarks, gluons, yadda yadda. But that seems to sacrifice flexibility and usability for theoretical "correctness." So, umm, like I said ... it depends. HTH. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]

Welcome to IWETHEY!