Re: Re: Flexible Schemas (was RE: The task tobe sol
"Simon St.Laurent" wrote: > Speaking for myself only, I find the notion of "document type" to be a > mistake in itself, an odd relic of programmers' expectations of > tightly-controlled data formats. If you find it more useful to > categorize every acceptable combination of parts from different > namespaces, you're welcome to do so, of course. I think "document type" is much more useful if you don't think of it as being a single root element, but rather a collection of root elements that provide different views into the same set of elements. > Just keep in mind that a few of us find "the bigger problem of > associating meta-data to document types" to be much less interesting and > less useful than "what is this namespace supposed to tell me?" One of the useful things about such meta-data is it provides yet another layer of context into the use of the namespace. Yes, it is interesting to know that XHTML provides human-readable stuff in HTML format, but the enclosing metadata tells you what that human-readable stuff is describing (a part, a restaurant, a bug). I don't think you can say one is more interesting than the other. -- Ron
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format