[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicolas LEHUEN [mailto:nicolas.lehuen@ubicco.com]
> Sent: 30 January 2002 17:40
> To: 'Leigh Dodds'; 'xml-dev'
> Cc: 'srn@coolheads.com'
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Co-operating with Architectural Forms
[...]
> >Isn't this more work?
>
> That's what I was telling myself, but I'm not sure I have fully understood
> AFs.
>
> It seems that format B needs to be redefined to include references to the
> common architecture, is it right ? If I have understood it well, the B DTD
> needs to be modified to include mappings to AFs and the document instances
> in format B must be modified to include PIs that refer to their AF ?
And likewise for Format A, so Company X must also be involved just because
I want to work with Company Y. Or at the very least I must change
my processing to add the appropriate AF incantations whilst processing
both formats.
> In that case, isn't this process more intrusive and costly than having an
> external mapping mechanism ?
This is what I'm trying to narrow in on.
I'm wondering whether AFs is a solution aimed at streamlining the creation
of vertical XML vocabularies (one doesn't necessarily have to, you define
an architectural DTD for everyones existing formats), rather than a means
to facilitate working with multiple vocabularies. Transforms seems a better
approach in that use case.
Cheers,
L.
|
