|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Are people really using Identity constraints specified in
I am trying to unsubscribe but am being unsuccessful in every attempt. Please remove me from your mailing list. Thanks, -----Original Message----- From: w3c@d... [mailto:w3c@d...] Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 3:38 PM To: xml-dev@l... Subject: RE: Are people really using Identity constraints specified in XML schema? Len, This made me smile thinking about stored procedure and print-statement heaven. CAM certainly does not have any lock-in on doing that classic content-merge-output stuff. It's just another option in that particular camp. The differentiator vis SQL is that CAM can work directly off an input XML instance as its content source. How that XML get generated or sourced is entirely down to the implementer naturally. So - that's one way to use CAM - the other way is as a validation tool. So people can answer the question - does my xml instance here conform to your business rules? And if not - why not! This brings a whole another aspect - where you can publish the CAM template as the yard-stick as it where for creating valid instances. In amongst this - you will pretty soon get into wanting to create dictionaries of element and attribute definitions across schemas - not just local definitions. CAM supports this via the <CcontentReference> section of the template - and ability to denote linkage between your instance nodes and central definitions in a registry. This then opens up the possiblity to label things in your XML to suit local usage - but actually refer to the standard name and definition in the dictionary - thus indicating they are the same thing in reality. So <billAddr> and <billingAddress> and <bToAd> can all be denoted as the same, etc. This also of course works on legacy XML transactions you already have slopping around out there and now could not possibly change persay. Just define the CAM template against those instances - thereby qualifying the actual usage semantic details. Hope that helps. Thanks, DW ===================================================================== Quoting len: Would it be fair to say CAM is a dynamic document generator using boilerplate libraries? That's not perjorative. We've been building these since the CALS days and before. The difference is we didn't use markup as the syntax for functions. (Thou Shalt Not Program in Markup: the early ISO dictum that held SGML's head under water while other declarative systems with better political positions pushed hypermedia to the side in favor of more complex solutions and vendors). So why would I want to use CAM templates over SQL stored queries and merge-laden scripted functions? I'm reading the document cited in the last email, not all of them, so I may miss something important. len ----------------------------------------------------------------- The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
|
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








