Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Rick Jelliffe" <email@example.com>
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 12:31:47 +0800
From: Pavel Velikhov <email@example.com>
>Rick Jelliffe wrote:
>> From: Pavel Velikhov <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> >If you don't know whether the object you are picking is an
>> >attribute or an element, you will have to write a disjunction.
>> When don't you know whether an object you are picking is an
>> attribute or an element?
>> Rick Jelliffe
>When you are querying a collection that does not have a DTD for
>example. You may know that homes have an id, but you don't know
>whether the id is an attribute or a element. Another case is a
>relational->XML wrapper, it export relational attributes as
>XML attributes, but might as well export them as elements.
Isn't your complaint really that there is no standard mapping from
a relational schema to a notional DTD/Schema? Let alone for
round-tripping. A policy that said "1 field equals 1 element"
would meet your requirements even in XML ; SML reduces
the choices in one area, but not enough to make querying work
Without such a mapping policy, you cannot assume anything about
what is returned by a query. If the database uses case-sensitive names,
which case is returned for the generic identifier? If the data is stored
as a date, what date format is returned? If a text field is used, can
text field contain markup?
So it would be a standard mapping policy that would fix the problem,
in any markup language.
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)