Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
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.
|
