Re: Re: Where does the "nothing left but toolkits" myth come f
On Monday 07 February 2005 08:16 am, Chris Burdess wrote: > > <parts> > <Carparts Item> > Product_Name&="Selespede gearbox" > </Carparts Item> > </parts> > > XML, example: > > <parts> > <carparts-item product-name='Selespede gearbox'/> > </parts> > > An example XML Schema definition that provides the datatype information: > > <xsd:schema xmlns:xsd='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema'> > <xsd:complexType name='Parts'> > <xsd:sequence> > <xsd:element name='carparts-item' minOccurs='0' > maxOccurs='unbounded'> > <xsd:complexType> > <xsd:attribute name='product-name' type='xsd:normalizedString' > use='required'/> > </xsd:complexType> > </xsd:element> > </xsd:sequence> > </xsd:complexType> > <xsd:element name='parts' type='Parts'/> > </xsd:schema> You're somehow trying to argue that sending more characters is somehow less. and that a two-file system is somehow simpler than a one file system. I can't see how. > In your data-centric database world, you have LOTS more car-parts > entries that that, right? Oh yeah, a one field one record scenario is pretty rare. That was only a small hand-written example. David -- Computergrid : The ones with the most connections win.
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