[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Monday 07 February 2005 08:16 am, Chris Burdess wrote:
>
> <parts>
> <Carparts Item>
> Product_Name&="Selespede gearbox"
> </Carparts Item>
> </parts>
>
> XML, example:
>
> <parts>
> <carparts-item product-name='Selespede gearbox'/>
> </parts>
>
> An example XML Schema definition that provides the datatype information:
>
> <xsd:schema xmlns:xsd='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema'>
> <xsd:complexType name='Parts'>
> <xsd:sequence>
> <xsd:element name='carparts-item' minOccurs='0'
> maxOccurs='unbounded'>
> <xsd:complexType>
> <xsd:attribute name='product-name' type='xsd:normalizedString'
> use='required'/>
> </xsd:complexType>
> </xsd:element>
> </xsd:sequence>
> </xsd:complexType>
> <xsd:element name='parts' type='Parts'/>
> </xsd:schema>
You're somehow trying to argue that sending more characters is
somehow less.
and that a two-file system is somehow simpler than a one file
system. I can't see how.
> In your data-centric database world, you have LOTS more car-parts
> entries that that, right?
Oh yeah, a one field one record scenario is pretty rare. That was only
a small hand-written example.
David
--
Computergrid : The ones with the most connections win.
|
