Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
What is the fundamental difference between ZConfig and ZCML apart from
the esthetic appearance that everyone seems to be so concerned with? I
see that all the attributes in the ZCML format are presented as elements
in the ZConfig format.
My point exactly ;-)
what does this imply *semantically* to put the information in attributes
as opposed to put it in elements?
maybe a better balance is needed between full-fledge attribute-based
design (ZCML) and full-fledge element-based design (ZConfig).
there is an article about the element vs attribute distinction that
might be worth reading.
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-eleatt.html
As I said earlier, I think XML is wrong for configuration for exactly
this kind of reason... element-based is right for this type of config,
it's why Apache uses, it's why Zope 2 uses it, and it's why Zope 3 uses
it for the .conf file...
...some might even say it's bizarre to suddenly switch to a different
language just because you're going off to include another .conf file, as
site.zcml is from zope.conf...
cheers,
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk
_______________________________________________
Zope3-dev mailing list
[email protected]
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
