[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 14:50 -0700, Charles Woerner wrote:
> > >The key is that we have a formal means of
> > >annotating the relationship between the master and the derived. In this
> > >way we can design our processing pipeline to deal with whatever
> > >constraints are appropriate at any stage. As long as people follow the
> > >business rule that the universe of valid documents for any derived
> > >schema is a subset of the universe of valid documents for the
> > >corresponding master schema, it all works very well indeed. The problem
> > >is that code review is the only way we have to enforce this rule.
>
> Is the "formal means of annotating the relationship" through peer code
> review? Or am I missing something...
No. Code review is the means for ensuring that someone doesn't have a
master schema such as:
<element name="spam"><empty/></element>
and a derived such as
<element name="eggs"><empty/></element>
Where clearly the documents valid against the derived schema are not a
subset of those valid against the master.
--
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
Use CSS to display XML, part 2 - http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/edu/x-dw-x-xmlcss2-i.html
Writing and Reading XML with XIST - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2005/03/16/py-xml.html
Use XSLT to prepare XML for import into OpenOffice Calc - http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-oocalc/
Be humble, not imperial (in design) - http://www.adtmag.com/article.asp?id=10286
State of the art in XML modeling - http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think30.html
|
