Erik Naggum  <erik@naggum.net> wrote:
+---------------
| * Boris Schaefer <boris@uncommon-sense.net>
| > Well, I agree that in most cases you will know whether something was
| > an attribute or contents, when you're processing it, but what about:
| >   <foo bar="1"><bar>2</bar></foo>
...
| >   (foo (bar 1) (bar 2))
| > I don't see how you can distinguish attributes and contents in this case,
| > and how you can translate this back into the same XML.  ...
...
|   Case in point: An element has a fixed number of attributes.  That is
|   reflected in a fixed length of the association list that makes up the
|   attributes.  Attributes are not repetable and not omissible, so if there
|   are n attributes in the attribute list for an element, there will be n
|   conses with attributes in the cdr of the element representation.  There
|   are no two ways about this.  It is completely and irrevocably unambiguous.
+---------------

While not repeatable, attributes *are* omissible if the DTD for those
attribute contains either default values or the "#IMPLIED" status keyword,
are they not? So if the DTD said:

	<!ELEMENT foo (bar | PCDATA)*>
	<!ATTLIST foo bar NUMBER #IMPLIED>

that is, the "foo" element has an optional "bar" attribute *and* also
allows an arbitrary number of "bar" sub-elements, then (foo (bar 1) (bar 2))
*would* be ambiguous.

I see two obvious ways to preserve the simplicity you seek:

1. Do what CL does for declarations, that is, reserve a symbol to
   tag lists of attributes (like "declare" does), which are optional,
   but if present may only appear before all non-attribute subforms:

	(foo (attr (bar 1)) (bar 2))

2. Force attribute names and element names into different packages, e.g.:

	(foo (attr:bar 1) (bar 2))

   or if the current package is never the keyword package, simply:

	(foo (:bar 1) (bar 2))


-Rob

p.s. The article "Element/Attribute Distinction Considered Harmful"
<URL:http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/xml-dev-Aug-1999/0375.html>
from the XML-DEV list discusses precisely the same issue, starting with:

	After writing the usual 'when to use elements and when to use
	attributes' bit for a new book and then spending some time
	close up with the XLink specs, I'm really starting to wonder
	if we haven't painted ourselves into a corner by treating leaf
	elements and attributes differently.

Unfortunately, no significant followups seem to have been posted!!

-----
Rob Warnock, 30-3-510		<rpw3@sgi.com>
SGI Network Engineering		<http://reality.sgi.com/rpw3/>
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy.		Phone: 650-933-1673
Mountain View, CA  94043	PP-ASEL-IA