3 ms·
If going in this direction, I’d want justification for position and age still being separate elements. Elements are clearly suitable or necessary when you want
by chrismorgan 4y ago
If going in this direction, I’d want justification for position and age still being separate elements. Elements are clearly suitable or necessary when you want multiple values, order-sensitivity, or to contain something other than a single text value. But that’s not the case here, and I find “hierarchical structure” or “property grouping” to be weak justification.
So then:
<star
bayerName="Beta Pictoris"
spectralType="A6V"
mass="1.75"
luminosity="8.7"
rightAscension="05h 47m 17.1s"
declination="−51°03′59″"
distance="63.4ly"
minAge="20My"
maxAge="24My"/>
We are, of course, playing into the article’s second footnote here.
(Also: I’m curious why you turned the original document’s ″ (U+2033 DOUBLE PRIME) into " (", U+0022 QUOTATION MARK).)
- sixbrx 4y agoInteresting thing about the position coordinates, is that the position really needs an "epoch" metadata attribute, like "2000" or "2050", because they are relative to the equinox which moves over the years. So maybe the fact that this kind of thing can rear its head unexpectedly might be an argument for favoring separate elements to group fields? If that new attribute were thrown in with the other attributes of "star" it looks like it qualifies the star, but it only really qualifies the coordinates.
- Devasta 4y agoI changed the character because I'm a dumbass who thought I was looking at a quotation mark. I don't ever see double prime at my job, so it was probably muscle memory.