[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: atoms, molecules
- From: "Rzepa, Henry" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 11:36:08 +0100
The preceeding discussion of course attracted my attention as
Its bad enough having to explain the difference in my community
between chemical elements and XML elements, without the prospect
of having to do so for molecules and atoms (:-) I suppose
we should consider ourselves lucky that xlink was never called
<bond> (is there a proposal to use the term?)
Add <electron> and <reaction> and you would have most of the CML DTD,
or should I say schema.
I appreciate that the namespaces are different, but still I can
see difficulties ahead with my molecular and atomic
(leaving aside bonded) colleagues!
>Every time I've read XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes, I've been unhappy with
>the wide variety of compound types that are considered 'primitives' by the
>specification. Leaving aside the issue of primitive types that could be
>derived from other types, we've still got compounds like:
>It would also open up the prospect of treating other compounds - like the
>CSS style attribute, some of the path information in SVG, and various other
>places where the principle of one chunk, one string has been violated - as
>a set of atoms which could themselves be validated and/or transformed
>This leads to another kinds of post-processing infoset, where the atoms are
>available as an ordered set of child nodes, but it seems like a promising road.
Henry Rzepa. +44 (0)20 7594 5774 (Office) +44 (0870) 132-3747 (eFax)
Dept. Chemistry, Imperial College, London, SW7 2AY, UK.