Re: schema-1 (was something about keys, a long while a

David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> However I'm still not toally convinced. It seems to me relatively rare
> to have lots of different element names (would have been called eleemnt
> types in an earlier era) which all have the same schema type and all
> need to be processed in the same way.
Hmm, actually, until very recently i thought the same way. Indeed,
in document processing this can be reasonably expected to be rare.
However, if you are using XML to transfer structured, strongly typed
data between applications (B2B: SOAP/ebXML...) you may suddenly
find matching by type a good idea.
Just another example: there is quite often money involved in B2B.
For this, you form a complex data type by stringing the value (a number)
and a currency code toghether. You might want to process data of this
type might consistently (e.g. pring negative values in red), but
use it under a lot of different names (offeredPrice, paidPrice,
amountPaid, taxValue...).

Simple types like codes defined by a regexp could be another example.

> If they have the same internal
> structure and the same processing one wonders what's gained by calling
> them different names.

They can be used to denote roles.

> Given that you do have lost of xxx-date element names you have to
> _somewhere_ mapo them all to date. You say you don't want a long list in
> a template match  (or equivalenty one assumes a lot of individual
> templates each calling a named "date" template) but the information has
> to be somewhere, for example in a list of type assignments in the
> schema, this doesn't seem so much easier to maintain.

Hmm, i'll have to study XSchema more closely. Maybe i'm on the wrong
path with my notes above.

Regards
J.Pietschmann

 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list