Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> -----Original Message----- > From: Nicolas LEHUEN [mailto:nicolas.lehuen@u...] > Sent: 30 January 2002 17:40 > To: 'Leigh Dodds'; 'xml-dev' > Cc: 'srn@c...' > Subject: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms [...] > >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 ? And likewise for Format A, so Company X must also be involved just because I want to work with Company Y. Or at the very least I must change my processing to add the appropriate AF incantations whilst processing both formats. > In that case, isn't this process more intrusive and costly than having an > external mapping mechanism ? This is what I'm trying to narrow in on. I'm wondering whether AFs is a solution aimed at streamlining the creation of vertical XML vocabularies (one doesn't necessarily have to, you define an architectural DTD for everyones existing formats), rather than a means to facilitate working with multiple vocabularies. Transforms seems a better approach in that use case. Cheers, L.
|
