Mark Hammond MHammond@skippinet.com.au
Tue, 8 Sep 1998 11:08:50 +1000

>Some argue that attributes should only be used for content that is not
>logically part of the document. I.e. if it should not disappear when you
>strip tags, don't put it in an attribute. Others argue that attributes
>are redundant and should be used sparingly if at all. Me? I throw

Hmm.  This sounds like a reasonable "rule of thumb" to me.  Does anyone
disagree with this.

This does seem to fit the existing HTML model - eg, an "IMG" tag - the size
attributes dont really form part of the document.

Dont know about an "anchor" tag - the HREF is an attribute - IMO this is a
necessary part of the document.

But if we stick with this definition, then the DTD with only elements seems

>a small drop of 10 year old Irish Whiskey over my left shoulder
>whilst standing on one leg. If one of the little people appear,
>I use an attribute, otherewise PCDATA.

:-)  I can relate to that!  Hopefully this means you only use attributes
very rarely (or after a _long_ session :-)

>>Sean asked about the CaseOfTheTags??  No one seemed to go with that idea?
>>kinda like it.
>SoDoI. XBEL documents are gonna LOOK REALLY LOUD. all lowercase is, i think
>prefereable to all uppcase whatever about camelcase...

OK - no one making noises, so I will use lower case (all our elements are
single words, so no need for mixed case)

Interesting about "CamelCase".  Fredrik thought it means "Perl" (the obvious
Camel reference).  Personally, I took it as being derived from the
silhouette of a real camel - the humps relate to the caps in the middle of
the word.  I wonder where it derived from - does it really mean "Perl"?

Maybe we should call it "Kangaroo Case" ;-) (coined by someone from
"skippi-net" - coincidence, or conspiracy - you be the judge :-)