Difference between revisions of "Talk:ThingDef/.xml notation "attributes" are actually elements"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New thread: .xml notation "attributes" are actually elements) |
m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
So to avoid confusion, and since we are dealing with .xml. I think we should use the proper nomenclature and refer to .xml elements as "elements" instead of as "attributes". There are also actual attributes used in the .xml definition files (eg: parentClass). I think it will make modding more approachable for those who have a background in .xml and html. I'm editing the page to reflect this but wanted to explain the reason here so that it didn't seem like I was just being arbitrary. | So to avoid confusion, and since we are dealing with .xml. I think we should use the proper nomenclature and refer to .xml elements as "elements" instead of as "attributes". There are also actual attributes used in the .xml definition files (eg: parentClass). I think it will make modding more approachable for those who have a background in .xml and html. I'm editing the page to reflect this but wanted to explain the reason here so that it didn't seem like I was just being arbitrary. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Also, here's a link for reference: http://www.w3schools.com/dtd/dtd_el_vs_attr.asp | ||
Latest revision as of 08:03, 1 May 2014
So to avoid confusion, and since we are dealing with .xml. I think we should use the proper nomenclature and refer to .xml elements as "elements" instead of as "attributes". There are also actual attributes used in the .xml definition files (eg: parentClass). I think it will make modding more approachable for those who have a background in .xml and html. I'm editing the page to reflect this but wanted to explain the reason here so that it didn't seem like I was just being arbitrary.
Also, here's a link for reference: http://www.w3schools.com/dtd/dtd_el_vs_attr.asp