Ah right - IBM, Microsoft, you know it's all the same. :) Actually, if we're getting technical, it was written by a single independent consultant TO IBM. Don't get me wrong, he's got a lot of good points, I just don't agree with some of them, and think they don't always apply to every situation.
Jason Merrill | E-Learning Solutions | icfconsulting.com >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:flashcoders- >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Kennon >>Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 4:49 PM >>To: Flashcoders mailing list >>Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] xpath / xpath4as2 beginners question >> >>Hi, >> >>The article was from IBM, regardless, your opinion is food for thought. >> >> >> >>______________ >>Respectfully, >> >>Christopher Kennon >>Principal/Designer/Programmer -Bushidodeep >> >>bushidodeep (http://bushidodeep.com/) >> >> >> >>On Feb 2, 2006, at 11:31 AM, Merrill, Jason wrote: >> >>> Ha - screw that article, M$ ain't the gods you know. IMO it's >>> preference - I like elements for speed and what I think is >>> readability. >>> You'll see in mxml, coldFusion, etc. even Micosoft's new xaml, that >>> attribute driven XML is the preferred method. >>> >>> However, if bloating an XML file with a bunch of nodes is your >>> preferred >>> method, there's not a whole lot wrong with that either... in a way. >>> Whatever works. If you are working with a Huge app and other peeps, >>> then yeah, you'll need to standardize. >>> >>> Jason Merrill | E-Learning Solutions | icfconsulting.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:flashcoders- >>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Kennon >>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 2:19 PM >>>>> To: Flashcoders mailing list >>>>> Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] xpath / xpath4as2 beginners question >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> After reading this article, I'm confused why client name does not >>>>> merit an element? >>>>> (http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-eleatt.html) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 2, 2006, at 10:00 AM, Merrill, Jason wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It's well formed, sure, but I would do it like this instead - make >>>>>> heavy >>>>>> use of attributes - as much as possible for speed, relationships, >>> and >>>>>> readability, something like this: >>>>>> >>>>>> <root> >>>>>> <clients> >>>>>> <client name="Borgo di Colleoli" sector="Property"> >>>>>> <discipline name="Direct Mail"/> >>>>>> <discipline name="Advertising"/> >>>>>> </client> >>>>>> <client name="Royal Bank of Scotland" sector="Finance"> >>>>>> <discipline name="Interactive Design"/> >>>>>> <discipline name="Strategy"/> >>>>>> </client> >>>>>> </clients> >>>>>> <sectors> >>>>>> <sector name="Property" client="Borgo di Colleoli"> >>>>>> <discipline name="Direct Mail"/> >>>>>> <discipline name="Advertising"/> >>>>>> <discipline name="Channel and Sales"/> >>>>>> <discipline name="Interactive Design"/> >>>>>> </sector> >>>>>> </sectors> >>>>>> <disciplines> >>>>>> <discipline name="Direct Mail" sector="Property" >>>>>> client="Borgo di Colleoli"/> >>>>>> </disciplines> >>>>>> </root> >>>>>> >>>>>> Preferrably if you could find a way to work this, you could also >>> maybe >>>>>> just do this to reduce redundancy: >>>>>> >>>>>> <root> >>>>>> <clients> >>>>>> <client name="Borgo di Colleoli" sector="Property"> >>>>>> <discipline name="Direct Mail"/> >>>>>> <discipline name="Advertising"/> >>>>>> </client> >>>>>> <client name="Royal Bank of Scotland" sector="Finance"> >>>>>> <discipline name="Interactive Design"/> >>>>>> <discipline name="Strategy"/> >>>>>> </client> >>>>>> </clients> >>>>>> ..add more here >>>>>> </root> >>>>>> >>>>>> ...and then make some use of XPath's search features to find the >>>>>> opposite relationships - i.e. sector to client, discipline to >>> sector, >>>>>> etc. - though I haven't used it yet so wouldn't have an example to >>>>>> share >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Jason Merrill | E-Learning Solutions | icfconsulting.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [mailto:flashcoders- >>>>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kent Humphrey >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 12:01 PM >>>>>>>> To: Flashcoders mailing list >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] xpath / xpath4as2 beginners question >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2 Feb 2006, at 15:48, Merrill, Jason wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> However, not a good idea to have a child node be the same >>>>>>>>> name as >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> parent node (though it's OK in the sense it that won't screw up >>>>>>>>> Xpath). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Would you believe my problem was I had product/products >>>>>>>> instead of >>>>>>>> product/products ?! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sheesh... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for the help. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can I have some general XML help too please? :> Does this XML >>>>>>>> file >>>>>>>> make sense, is it well formed? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <root> >>>>>>>> <clients> >>>>>>>> <client name="Borgo di Colleoli"> >>>>>>>> <sector>Property</sector> >>>>>>>> <discipline>Direct Mail</discipline> >>>>>>>> <discipline>Advertising</discipline> >>>>>>>> </client> >>>>>>>> <client name="Royal Bank of Scotland"> >>>>>>>> <sector>Finance</sector> >>>>>>>> <discipline>Interactive Design</discipline> >>>>>>>> <discipline>Strategy</discipline> >>>>>>>> </client> >>>>>>>> </clients> >>>>>>>> <sectors> >>>>>>>> <sector name="Property"> >>>>>>>> <client>Borgo di Colleoli</client> >>>>>>>> <discipline>Direct Mail</discipline> >>>>>>>> <discipline>Advertising</discipline> >>>>>>>> <discipline>Channel and Sales</discipline> >>>>>>>> <discipline>Interactive Design</discipline> >>>>>>>> </sector> >>>>>>>> </sectors> >>>>>>>> <disciplines> >>>>>>>> <discipline name="Direct Mail"> >>>>>>>> <sector>Property</sector> >>>>>>>> <client>Borgo di Colleoli</client> >>>>>>>> </discipline> >>>>>>>> </disciplines> >>>>>>>> </root> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I know I'm in danger of repeating my first mistake by doing >>>>>>>> something >>>>>>>> like client/clients instead of clients/client - but I can't think >>> of >>>>>>>> another way to organise it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Observant readers may recognise this as an xml sample of my >>> matrix/ >>>>>>>> relationships questions from a few days ago :> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Flashcoders mailing list >>>>>>>> Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com >>>>>>>> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders >>>>>> NOTICE: >>>>>> This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain >>>>>> privileged or confidential information. If you have received it in >>>>>> error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the >>>>>> original. Any other use of this e-mail by you is prohibited. >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Flashcoders mailing list >>>>>> Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com >>>>>> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Flashcoders mailing list >>>>> Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com >>>>> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Flashcoders mailing list >>> Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com >>> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Flashcoders mailing list >>Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com >>http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders _______________________________________________ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
