Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
----- Original Message ----- From: Marcus Carr <mrc@a...> > Sorry, it's in UAT at the moment, so isn't available for viewing. Even if it > was, all you'd see is a website with a whole lot of forms - there aren't any > hints to the underlying data structures. It's only a conceptual design issue, > or am I missing what you're looking for? > > > From your letter I don't even understand are you talking about DTDs or > > Schema. > > It shouldn't really matter, should it? It was designed against DTDs, but will > soon be migrated to schemas. Well ... 1. I was under impression that expressive power of schemas is greater than expressive power of DTDs. If this is right - it think it *should* really matter. 2. My understading is that both schema and DTDs are *not* giving ideal support for 'base architecture' mentioned in original letter. 3. (1) and (2) are of course realive. One can implement some base architecture in, say, m4. I mean - #include this and that, #define this and that and call it 'scalable'. Like people did in C - before C++. I guess scalable DTD's are based on defining / redefining entities, right? It is like #defines juggling, right ? That's why I want to see actual DTDs. I'm wondering how convinient is this trick in the real-life. I think #define's juggling was not convinient for complex cases. That's why we don't need #defines in C++ . Rgds.Paul.
|
