On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Costello, Roger L. <> wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> Suppose that you document the steps to be taken by an aircraft in its landing procedure:
>
> 1. Contact control tower
>
> 2. Enter glide slope
>
> 3. Correct for wind conditions
>
> Suppose those things must be followed in the sequence listed.
>
> The XML could be designed like this:
>
> <aircraft-approach-procedure>
> <transition>Contact control tower</transition>
> <transition>Enter glide slope</transition>
> <transition>Correct for wind conditions</transition>
> </aircraft-approach-procedure>
>
> That design relies (implicitly) on the order of the <transition> elements for denoting the sequence of steps to be taken.
>
> An alternative design is to (explicitly) specify the order. Here is one way to accomplish this:
>
> <aircraft-approach-procedure>
> <transition step="2">Enter glide slope</transition>
> <transition step="3">Correct for wind conditions</transition>
> <transition step="1">Contact control tower</transition>
> </aircraft-approach-procedure>
>
> Note that in this design it is not necessary to list the <transition> elements in a particular order since @step explicitly indicates the order.
>
> I vote for the latter as best practice. I invoke this principle as my justification:
>
> Make implicit structures explicit.
>
> What do you think?
>
That script filling is an integral part of human cognition and I would
not advocate a specification practice that ignores that.
