Scott Tavares wrote:
>
> Below is a proposed DTD for the ClassMap(s), feedback is requested.
>
> ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
> <!ELEMENT ClassMaps (Class+)>
> <!ELEMENT Class (AttributeMap+)>
> <!ATTLIST Class
> Name CDATA #REQUIRED
> Proxy (True|False) #REQUIRED>
> <!ELEMENT AttributeMap (ColumnMap)>
> <!ATTLIST AttributeMap
> Name CDATA #REQUIRED
> PKey (True|False) #REQUIRED
> Proxy (True|False) #REQUIRED>
> <!ELEMENT ColumnMap (TableMap)>
> <!ATTLIST ColumnMap
> Name CDATA #REQUIRED>
> <!ELEMENT TableMap (#PCDATA)>
> <!ATTLIST TableMap
> Name CDATA #REQUIRED>
>
> ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Your work is appreciated, but why bother with a DTD? I would prefer to
use an XML Schema, as to not be outdated within 6 months. DTDs are
going away for application developers...
In addition, I think we should define sample documents first... it is
hard to create constraints when no one has formulated a good variety of
data that should be constrained. I think we should set up some
element/attribute names and ideas, and develop some XML instance
documents. Only then do I feel we are ready to apply constraints to
that data.
Look at http://xml.apache.org. They don't have any constraints that go
across all the projects for the styles and documentation, because they
are just now seeing the variety of elements they need. I vote we create
XML data classmaps, and evaluate those, before committing to a schema
for constraining those maps.
-Brett
>
> -scott-
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
