Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
The preceeding discussion of course attracted my attention as a chemist! Its bad enough having to explain the difference in my community between chemical elements and XML elements, without the prospect of having to do so for molecules and atoms (:-) I suppose we should consider ourselves lucky that xlink was never called <bond> (is there a proposal to use the term?) Add <electron> and <reaction> and you would have most of the CML DTD, or should I say schema. I appreciate that the namespaces are different, but still I can see difficulties ahead with my molecular and atomic (leaving aside bonded) colleagues! >Every time I've read XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes, I've been unhappy with >the wide variety of compound types that are considered 'primitives' by the >specification. Leaving aside the issue of primitive types that could be >derived from other types, we've still got compounds like: >... >It would also open up the prospect of treating other compounds - like the >CSS style attribute, some of the path information in SVG, and various other >places where the principle of one chunk, one string has been violated - as >a set of atoms which could themselves be validated and/or transformed >and/or typed. > >This leads to another kinds of post-processing infoset, where the atoms are >available as an ordered set of child nodes, but it seems like a promising road. -- Henry Rzepa. +44 (0)20 7594 5774 (Office) +44 (0870) 132-3747 (eFax) Dept. Chemistry, Imperial College, London, SW7 2AY, UK. http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/rzepa/
|
