[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?
----- Original Message ----- From: K.Kawaguchi <k-kawa@b...> > > > is a good layer to build upon. I'm not saying that XSD or TREX > > is a bad thing. I'm saying that it is not a good thing for > > the logical layering ( when trying to express the rules in > > Would you elaborate it a little more, please? (And also, how about RELAX?) I'd prefer it another way. 1. Let's assume that I have some schema, expressed in terms of RELAX. ( SQL 'core' == simple CREATE TABLE ) 2. Now I want to write some 'more complex' rules / constraints a-la Schematron ( SQL 'layer 2' == constraints and / or triggers ). 3. I want to write 2 sometimes using the entities which I've defined at the step 1. How can I do that ? Rgds.Paul.
|
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
|