General

Re: Use of Field Attribute

Greg Collins — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 17:06:04 GMT

Its always arguable which to use. It really comes down to policy and preference.

For example, I might use an attribute like this:

<Product id="12345">
    <ProductDetail_1/>
    <ProductDetail_2/>
</Product>

But someone else might recommend:

<Product>
    <Id>12345</Id>
    <ProductDetail_1/>
    <ProductDetail_2/>
</Product>

Which is right? Both.

For a repeating group, I might like something like this because it makes it cleaner in the XML:

<Vehicle vin="" color="" engineType="" etc=""/>

Whereas someone else might prefer the following because each element is easier to find:

<Vehicle>
    <Vin/>
    <Color/>
    <EngineType/>
    <Etc/>
</Vehicle>

Which is right? Again, both.

It all comes down to either policy or personal preference.

Re: Use of Field Attribute

dlgross — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 09:48:19 GMT

Greg, thanks. I accidently added a field attribute and it took me a while to realize why it was required and I could not change it, which is why I asked this question. Do you have any examples of business scenarios in which "attributes are tightly related to a particular element"? I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.
Thanks

Re: Use of Field Attribute

Greg Collins — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 23:32:24 GMT

There is not set pattern on this. Each has its benefits.

The one thing to keep in mind is that for attributes, if you choose a datatype other than string, it automatically becomes a required field. If you want to have a "date" attribute, but not required, you must use a string--but then you lose the automatic datatype validation that InfoPath provides.

For me, I like to use attributes when they are more tightly related to a particular element. And I often like to use them on repeating elements because it makes the list easier to read in the XML itself (if your into looking at the raw XML).

Use of Field Attribute

dlgross — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:19:12 GMT

When should i use a Field Attribute instead of a Field Element?