Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Paul Tchistopolskii <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Marcus Carr <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 21:00:11 -0800
----- Original Message -----
From: Marcus Carr <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sorry, it's in UAT at the moment, so isn't available for viewing. Even if it
> was, all you'd see is a website with a whole lot of forms - there aren't any
> hints to the underlying data structures. It's only a conceptual design issue,
> or am I missing what you're looking for?
> > From your letter I don't even understand are you talking about DTDs or
> > Schema.
> It shouldn't really matter, should it? It was designed against DTDs, but will
> soon be migrated to schemas.
1. I was under impression that expressive power of schemas is
greater than expressive power of DTDs. If this is right - it think
it *should* really matter.
2. My understading is that both schema and DTDs are *not*
giving ideal support for 'base architecture' mentioned in original
3. (1) and (2) are of course realive. One can implement some
base architecture in, say, m4. I mean - #include this and that,
#define this and that and call it 'scalable'. Like people did in
C - before C++.
I guess scalable DTD's are based on defining / redefining entities,
right? It is like #defines juggling, right ?
That's why I want to see actual DTDs. I'm wondering how convinient
is this trick in the real-life. I think #define's juggling was not convinient
for complex cases. That's why we don't need #defines in C++ .