wrote in message news:1041272582.716.0{at}tkdsoftware.com...
> DR> http://harborwebs.com:8080/Net379/v0.0.5.NET379.XML
>
> I checked it out a while ago, and now I've taken another look. :-)
>
> Here are some quick points (in no particular order):
>
> CM,V32b,V42b,XA
>
> This format requires secondary parsing (to split the string into separate
> flags), which in my opintion we should try to avoid, since we can use the
XML
> parser for that instead.

How would you propose doing it then if not a concantenated string seperated
by a comma for multiple flag values?

> 
>
> The various connection methods/protocols are pretty likely to change over
> time so placing them in the tag name seems like a bad idea. Sure, it's
possible
> to update the DTD:s or Schema to add/remove valid elements but that makes
the
> procedure more complex than it needs to be.

I think maybe a better approach would be:


  
    
  


This way the "format" is generic and leaving data that is specific to the
"Type"
as a value (either sub element value or attribute value).  Do you prefer
this
type of method?

Thanks
Chris


--- Mail-ennium/32 v1.01.301.9/#01-0001