[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com> writes:
> On Thursday 24 January 2002 11:47 am, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>
> > Steve's message is pertinent. Maybe XML needs to,
> > as a human does, be able to go in both directions.
> > That is, a parent constrains the element, but an
> > element should be able to cite its eligible
> > parents.
> From: Gavin Thomas Nicol [mailto:gtn@rbii.com]
>
> How is that contract to be obeyed?
Since Len asked me to answer this question, I'm trying,
but I guess I don't understand the question. Why is
this any different from obeying the contextual
constraints imposed on an element instance by any
corresponding DTD or XML schema for the element type of
which the element is an instance?
An element specifies its eligible parents by specifying
its generic identifier.
If the element has multiple alternative generic
identifiers (as is the case when the AF paradigm is
used), then each of them has the effect of imposing
constraints on its parents, but only in terms of the
DTD of the corresponding base architecture.
In all cases, the "contract" is obeyed by constructing
the document instance in conformance with the
corresponding DTD(s).
-- Steve
Steven R. Newcomb, Consultant
srn@coolheads.com
voice: +1 972 359 8160
fax: +1 972 359 0270
1527 Northaven Drive
Allen, Texas 75002-1648 USA
|
