Simon,
That's a good point. Working in what feels like a vacuum sometimes, I
forget that other people have different needs than mine ;-). I don't see
why we can have both in the CVS tree though, as long as they are equal, then
it is up to the user I suppose. And then eventually phase out the DTD.
Schemas just have so much more to offer in the long run, at least IMHO.
Thanks,
-Mat
Mathieu Wiepert
Medical Information Resources
Mayo Foundation
(507) 266-2317
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Brocklehurst [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 9:51 AM
To: Wiepert, Mathieu
Cc: BioJava List
Subject: Re: [Biojava-l] request/proposal for change to BlastLike DTD
"Wiepert, Mathieu" wrote:
> Simon,
> Awhile ago you had mentioned changing from the DTD to a schema.
> Have you put any work into that? Schema is now a w3C recommendation, so
we
> should probably move over to that soon. I did try a simple conversion
from
> the DTD to schema with XML Spy, but that did not work, and I didn't pursue
> it.
Mat,
My *preference* is to move to Schema as soon as people are comfortable with
that. If that time is now, let's do it. But I don't have a problem if not
-
DTDs work fine for the particular XML format we have here.
S.
--
Simon M. Brocklehurst, Ph.D.
Head of Bioinformatics & Advanced IS
Cambridge Antibody Technology
The Science Park, Melbourn, Cambridgeshire, UK
http://www.CambridgeAntibody.com/
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Biojava-l mailing list - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://biojava.org/mailman/listinfo/biojava-l
