|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Locally Linked Infosets approach
Hi Rick, Rick Jelliffe wrote: >The downside is that it does not >provide any mechanism for fine-grained annotation of individual nodes >in the original document (apart from type-tagging). This may not >be a requirement given (for sake of argument) that we are more interested in >knowing that a node is valid rather than telling later processes how to treat that node. > > I think I should have made a clearer distinction between the three usage patterns I outline in the proposal - [a] added meta-data, as when you SchemaProcess() a root element and then query SchemaResults() on that element *or any child node* to get type or other meta-data for the node in question. This is what I regard as the base case, and what is outlined in the first use case. [b] alternative instance data, as when Default values are added - in this case you SchemaProcess() an element and then substitute the SchemaResults() from *that* element as instance data for onward processing, though still using usage [a] to query meta-data on this new instance data, and [c] piped processing, where the results of one type [b] processing step are used as input to another. The third use case is meant to illustrate types [b] and [c] usage patterns. In summary, case [a], which is what I think you are asking for above, is in fact the basic usage, and what I meant by the first 'L' in Locally Linked Infosets. Francis. see http://www.redrice.com/xml/LocallyLinkedInfosets.html -- "Never mind manoeuvre, go straight at 'em." - Admiral Horatio Nelson
|
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
|
|||||||||

Cart








