From: Simon Willison (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Sep 07 2002 - 18:10:06 BST
At 17:59 07/09/2002 +0000, Jim Dabell wrote:
>I prefer mine, sorry :). The "priority" that I used in my suggestion was
>inspired by dns/mx priorities - start with the lowest number (if two
>methods are equal, decide by yourself), and if one fails (or you can't
>implement it for any reason), move on to the next method, until you find
>one that works. I'm not sure if that was clear or not, or if you just
>don't think it's useful.
Aah, I was a bit confused on that detail - thanks. I'm slightly
uncomfortable with the idea of attributes with numbers in being used to
define priority - information like that seems to me to be crying out to be
represented by the structure of the XML document (half the fun of XML is
the fact that it lets you build up weird and wonderful hierarchical
> > One potential problem with the above is that interface details are
> > contained as a single block of CDATA.
>I'm not quite sure what you mean - you mean the URL etc are free-form,
>instead of as an attribute? I agree, I don't particularly like it, but I
>thought that was just because I am used to html hrefs.
I'm fine with using CDATA when there's only one bit of information to
display, my objection was that once you have more than one piece of
information (like an email address and subject) you're stuck - CDATA only
really lets you represent one bit of data.
Web Developer, www.incutio.com
Message sent over the Blogite mailing list.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:05:01 BST