Read the next message I send before this one, please
On 04/08/2014 04:47 PM, Amelia A Lewis wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 20:09:21 +0000, Costello, Roger L. wrote:
>> 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?
> 6. Witness this little paragraph itself, which I will send as a
> listicle with order indicated.
>
> 3. Those elements are ordered.
>
> 2. This makes explicit the structure indicated by a sequence of
> elements.
>
> 4. In addition, XML has a long-standing goal of readability (however
> little you may think it succeeds).
>
> 5. Ordered text is much easier to read than unordered.
>
> 1. XML has already specified that element order is significant.
>
> Amy!
