[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?
- From: Paul Tchistopolskii <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "K.Kawaguchi" <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 22:15:10 -0800
----- Original Message -----
From: K.Kawaguchi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > 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 ?