Closed mbakeranalecta closed 8 years ago
We should note the similarity of this to the record structure
filmography:: film
Rio Bravo
The Shootish
Do we really need to support the first form as well?
We should note that the form in the previous comment does not have an equivalent output:
<filmography>
<film>Rio Bravo</film>
<film>The Shootist</film>
</filmography>
vs.
<filmography>
<row>
<film>Rio Bravo</film>
</row>
<row>
<film>The Shootist</film>
</row>
</filmography>
On reflection, I don't like this enhancement, since it hides structure from the reader. The recordset shortcut is equally brief while not hiding structure and can be rectified in post processing if desired. Doc this an an alternative.
Documented.
Suppose you have a semantically labeled list:
It would be a handy shortcut if the author could use regular list markup instead of repeating "film:":
If the schema knows that only film elements are allowed under filmography, there should be no ambiguity here. Alternatives would be to allow it generally for any list-like structure (any parent with only one child type, and one that is allowed to repeat), or to specify it specifically in the schema. The former seems at first blush to be the more attractive option.
Doing something to support this without a schema does not seem worth while. It would introduce non-intuitive syntax.