Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
1/27/2002 6:33:35 PM, John Cowan <cowan@m...> wrote: >Ah, that's where architectural forms come in. They say "Mark up >your XML document further by adding some attributes, so that >we can figure out that what you mean by FOO is what we mean by BAR." Yes, I just read the descriptions of architectural forms on David Megginson's page, and had a bit of a "scales falling from the eyes" experience! Anyway ... AF, namespaces, XSLT ... or procedural code for that matter ... there are multiple ways to be liberal in accepting FOO tags rather than stricting insisting on BAR tags. As for Paul Prescod's comment: > How will you write software to verify that the information > you need is in there? Isn't the easiest way just to > check it against the schema? If I can use AF, XSLT, or procedural code to map various possible element/attribute FOOs to my BARs and I don't care how much extra tags and verbiage the order contains, nor whether the sender thinks the "stock number" is a string or an integer, than I can extract the information I need. Furthermore, if my business process thinks that a "valid" order is a) from an established customer b) for a product that is listed in our catalog, c) the ordered product is currently in stock, and d) the customer's credit is sufficient to cover the price; then an XML schema won't help me "validate" it.
|
