Different Formats of XML????

[Eric]

Hi Folks,
Can someone point me in the direction of some info on the differences
between the following two formats of XML? I work in an ORG that
utilizes both so I'd like to start gathering some data on which one is
better so that we may consolidate.

Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!

<DATASET>
<DATAROW FNAME="Eric" LNAME="Langland" />
<DATAROW FNAME="Larry" LNAME="Ellison" />
</DATASET>

<DATASET>
<DATAROW>
<FNAME>Eric</FNAME>
<LNAME>Langland</LNAME>
</DATAROW>
<DATAROW>
<FNAME>Larry</FNAME>
<LNAME>Ellison</LNAME>
</DATAROW>
</DATASET>

 

[Andy Dingley]

Can someone point me in the direction of some info on the differences
between the following two formats of XML?

You're standing in it. Do some Google on subject lines of "element
vs. attribute"

 

[Mike McCarthy]

I was just looking at this today - W3 schools suggests the second
option, ie. using child elements.

Check - http://www.w3schools.com/xml/xml_attributes.asp

 

[Stefan Ram]

Can someone point me in the direction of some info on the differences
between the following two formats of XML?
<DATAROW FNAME="Eric" LNAME="Langland" />
<DATAROW>
<FNAME>Eric</FNAME>
<LNAME>Langland</LNAME>
</DATAROW>

In XML, there is a discrepancy between the semantics and
syntactical restrictions. The result is that today no one can
answer this question with certainity.

Usually, there are two kinds of predicates: Unary predicates
P, written as Px, and binary relations R, written as xRy.

The assertion you want to notate is:

x is a data row and
The FNAME of x is "Eric" and
The LNAME of x is "Langland" .

In a more formal notation, using unary predicates and binary
relations this would mean:

data_row(x) ^
FNAME(x,"Eric") ^
LNAME(x,"Langland") .

Using the guideline that it enhances readability and
usability when syntactic structures are related to
semantics, this suggest to use element types for unary
predicates and attributes for binary relations, so:

<DATAROW FNAME="Eric" LNAME="Langland" />

But - this is not always possible in XML, because type and
attributes can not always be repeated as needed and the values
of attributes may not be structured.

So, some suggest to always use subelements and to ignore
attributes, while others flip wildly between attributes and
subelements with out any clear rules or even use attributes
whenever posssible just because it is easier to enter them
with their current XML-editor.

My own solution is to use "Unotal" instead of XML. Unotal
allows repeated types and attributes and it allows structured
attributes. So I can tell between subelements and attributes
by their meaning and not by arbitrary syntactical
restrictions. Thus, I have a "clean source notation". If
needed, I than can convert that to XML or whatever else is
required. See also:

http://www.purl.org/stefan_ram/pub/unotal_en

 

[Eric]

Great. Thank you both.

Cheers

Eric

I was just looking at this today - W3 schools suggests the second
option, ie. using child elements.

Check - http://www.w3schools.com/xml/xml_attributes.asp