- From: Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:20:07 +0100
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Cc: Jean-Claude Dufourd <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <2433E088-3443-43A7-8141-5EDBEFB8354A@gmail.com>
In practice, we've been serialising data into JSON and storing it in a preference as text content whenever we've needed a preference value to contain structured information. Having the content of the preference value as text content at least makes it easier to know how to start de/serializing it. Arbitrary structured XML/HTML would be a real pain to implement. Escaping XML or serialising preference values in some other fashion seems less painful. S On 24 Jun 2009, at 17:03, Robin Berjon wrote: > On Jun 24, 2009, at 14:16 , Jean-Claude Dufourd wrote: >> Robin Berjon a écrit : >>> If by text content you mean actual text content, then there is no >>> difference whatsoever between what can be stored in an attribute >>> value and the text content (as per DOM 3 textContent) of an >>> element — at least not semantically. >> JCD: I think I agree with you Robin, but Marcos writes something >> different. > > Which, obviously, means that Marcos must be wrong. Attributes can > contain the same text as element content (though some syntactical > details may vary). > >> In the IDL, both are DOMStrings right ? Is there spec text limiting >> attributes ? I cannot find a > > I'm not sure what you mean by "in the IDL" since this is an XML > question and is therefore entirely unrelated to APIs. In A+E, > preferences are returned as DOMStrings indeed, but that is > orthogonal to the value space of the way in which it is captured in > syntax. In fact, the value space of DOMStrings is larger than that > which can be encoded in XML text anyway. > >>> If by text content you mean structured content, then we're talking >>> about turning the preference system into an XML storage system >>> since most XML constructs could appear there. >> JCD: Are you not contradicting yourself ? If the two are identical >> in storing possibilities, there should be no difference (if >> appropriate quoting of special characters is applied). > > No. They have the same storage for *text content*. But elements can > contain a bunch of things that attributes can't: elements, > processing instructions, comments, CDATA sections... > >>> Do you mind clarifying which one it is you are wondering about? >> JCD: It is indeed a question of allowing the users (users of widget >> spec = authors actually) to place anything in the value of a >> preference, including bits of XML or whatever that needs a CDATA >> section around it to fit in an XML file. > > You can indeed place anything unstructured inside the value of a > preference (irrespective of which approach might be taken). > >> To reformulate my current understanding, informed by your answer, >> using an attribute vs. the text content is equivalent in terms of >> which strings are allowed, but the attribute format is more >> difficult to express (because more intricate quoting is needed) >> than the text content. > > I would hardly call quote escaping intricate (it's only one extra > rule compared to element content). An attribute can be seen as > semantically preferable here as the value is not intended to be > structured or extensible. > > -- > Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ > Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/ > > > > > >
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2009 16:20:50 UTC