James Hogg set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
continuum:

>>I've never created XML stuff, but from work in other contexts I'd
>>suggest <series_set> or <series_group>.
> 
> The OED has these quotations:
> 
> "1765 W. WARD Grammar IV. iv. 167 Several participles cannot
> conveniently be used so as to affect every part of long serieses
> of words immediately."
> 
> "1797 Encycl. Brit. (ed. 3) XVIII. 514/1 Two serieses are
> completed in the exact time of a lunation."
> 
> Apparently the plural could be spelt (that's not Triticum spelta)
> "serieses" or "series's" in the 17th and 18th centuries.
> 
> Not that I'm recommending it for use today. Your solution looks
> good.

Isn't series already a plural? (F only knows what the singular might have
been though.) No probs with spelt by the way, I'm a native BrE speaker.

I've had some dabblings in XML, and just recently we had somebody in charge
of the system we're trying to link to, saying that our test XML output was
OK, so next day our engineer travelled 50 miles to the customer's site to
install our system, and in the middle of that an email arrived back at our
office, pointing out a fault that needed a little tweak. (One tag appeared
twice without its antitag.) AAAAARGH!! Why couldn't you have told us this
yesterday? Thank f for websites like YouSendIt.

My main gripe against XML is that it's so verbose. In this particular
application, tags and antitags take up more than ten times as much space as
the actual data being sent. CSV was *so* much more compact.
-- 
ξ:) Proud to be curly

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply