[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Great summation!
> In any of these cases, as soon as one needs
> stronger datatyping, say types for integers,
> one has to get beyond DTDs. Think of DTDs as
> XML's bottom line bootstrapping language for
> moving beyond well-formedness, and that is
> a good metric, but it won't go very far
> and one will likely have to if one needs
> a sharable definition that side of
> sharing the code. But remember, XML
> only requires well-formedness to be
> XML and sharing code is not out of the
> question.
Again, thanks.
--- "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
wrote:
> As Betty said, "it depends on the tools" is one
> rule of thumb. DTDs refuse to go away because
> they are ultimately the bottom line of the
> XML specification for basic validation. In
> other words, you can usually count on them being
> supported in your toolset. But given a toolset
> that supports RELAX NG, I wouldn't start there
> these days. Given a toolset that supports XML
> Schema and a need to model, say a relational
> database, I would start with XML Schema because
> I can get a first cut using an ODBC-sourced
> dump of the relational schema. I haven't tried
> that with RELAX so I don't know how well that
> works but I suspect it does.
>
> But now I have this table-sourced XML and
> I have to model relational value constraints.
> At that point, I have to go to Schematron
> say in the app-info elements, or I have to
> move on to business logic in say C# or
> Java objects.
>
> In any of these cases, as soon as one needs
> stronger datatyping, say types for integers,
> one has to get beyond DTDs. Think of DTDs as
> XML's bottom line bootstrapping language for
> moving beyond well-formedness, and that is
> a good metric, but it won't go very far
> and one will likely have to if one needs
> a sharable definition that side of
> sharing the code. But remember, XML
> only requires well-formedness to be
> XML and sharing code is not out of the
> question.
>
> len
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tariq abdur-rahim
> [mailto:ecliptoid330@yahoo.com]
>
> Interesting point! However, would the argument now,
> not be that, given the realative "weakness" of DTDs
> in
> comparison to Schemas, RELAX NG, and Schematron,
> what
> would the purpose be of even going the DTD route for
> validation? Too, given the example stated...
=====
>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>
T. A b d u r - R a h i m
W e b D e v e l o p e r
More sacrifice,
creates better living.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com
|
