[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Gertner [mailto:matthew.gertner@schemantix.com]
> Sent: 26 March 2002 14:39
> To: 'James Clark'
> Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] RELAX NG Marketing (was RE: [xml-dev] Do Names Matter?)
>
>...I feel that polymorphic behavior of XML documents would
> be an extremely valuable thing. I'd happily justify this statement if anyone
> is interested, but not in this post since it is already way too long.
Isn't polymorphic behaviour from a single XML document actually
Architectural Forms?
i.e. one can view the document from multiple processing perspectives
by selecting the appropriate architectural form and associated architectural
processor?
After the last discussion on AFs, I was left with the conclusion that
one could address some (all?) of the type derivation requirements of
XSD using an Architectural Forms based approach. Or more to put
this another way, that AFs facilitate variations in schemas but still
provide a validatable core.
Unfortunately I've just not had the time to either fully test this idea,
or more formally write up that same discussion.
Cheers,
L. (lacking in tuits of whatever shape)
--
Leigh Dodds, Research Group, Ingenta | "Pluralitas non est ponenda
http://weblogs.userland.com/eclectic | sine necessitate"
http://www.xml.com/pub/xmldeviant | -- William of Ockham
|
