On 11/16/13 9:05 AM, David Sheets wrote:
>> "Refute" was the wrong choice of words, then. "Refute" usually asks for a
>> strong demolition, not just a glancing blow. That was why I made the same
>> complaint John just did.
>
> If I make an assertion and you respond with "Absolutely not", I expect
> you to muster a refutation. If you say "Why do you make this claim?",
> I am more than happy to lay out my argument.
Uche did ask such a thing, with "After you." It did not appear to go
over well.
In any case, asking for refutation sounds more like a dare than a
request for clarification.
>> I think you meant to say "Can element omission be used to model optional
>> [data structures]".
>>
>> "Can", of course. Well, sort of. The interesting question isn't "can", but
>> "is it a good idea?". There's no general answer to that - it all depends on
>> what you want to do and in what context.
>
> Is it a better idea than using the string "null"? Other solutions
> include special attributes or a distinct element. Are there still more
> that are simple to express in XML the Syntax?
>
> Does XML lack something that would make using the command string
> "null" preferable to one of these other options in some context?
Is this a Zen koan exercise? There is no general answer. The only
answers exist in specific contexts people create.
Thanks,
--
Simon St.Laurent
http://simonstl.com/
