On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 15:02:07 -0500, Joe Gregorio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 11:48:24 -0800, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Rather than a "label" attribute, why not just use the content of > > <category>? That way you could decorate the human-readable version, > > e.g. with HTML markup. -Tim > > LOL. And I just suggested putting @term in the content. Heh. > My reasoning goes like this, the @term is the *real* data, in the > case of using an existing schema, this the key into that schema. > The @label is just a human readable name that may have no > meaning beyond that one site. For example I will point out > Mark Pilgrim's category labels which include: > > # Those that have just broken a flower vase > # Those that resemble flies from a distance > # Those that tremble as if they were mad I honestly don't know - there's certainly merit on both sides. I went for all-attributes because that seemed easiest in RDF/XML (*ducks for cover*)... Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
