• To: 'Leigh Dodds' <ldodds@i...>, 'xml-dev' <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• From: Nicolas LEHUEN <nicolas.lehuen@u...>
• Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 18:39:48 +0100
• Cc: "'srn@c...'" <srn@c...>

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Leigh Dodds [mailto:ldodds@i...]
>Envoyé : mercredi 30 janvier 2002 14:25
>À : xml-dev
>Cc : srn@c...
>Objet :  Co-operating with Architectural Forms
>
>
>How do AFs help in this situation?
>
>I'll hazard a response to this question, just to outline my confusion.
>For an AF based solution we get together with X and Y and define 
>a meta-DTD. I then re-tool to process data according to the 
>meta-DTD, and do the appropriate AF magic to process A & B 
>according to this meta-DTD.
>
>Isn't this more work?

That's what I was telling myself, but I'm not sure I have fully understood
AFs.

It seems that format B needs to be redefined to include references to the
common architecture, is it right ? If I have understood it well, the B DTD
needs to be modified to include mappings to AFs and the document instances
in format B must be modified to include PIs that refer to their AF ?

In that case, isn't this process more intrusive and costly than having an
external mapping mechanism ?

Regards,
Nicolas

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
    • From: "Leigh Dodds" <ldodds@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Auto-completion in editors
• Next by Date: Non-deterministic schema issue....
• Previous by thread: Namespaces in XML and schemas
• Next by thread: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread