[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: the simple case and the regrep tech spec
(Folks, please note the cross-posting for this discussion.) I'm still trying to understand Terry's message of 11 March under this subject heading. I have some questions for him. The normative case for what the xml.org implementors are calling a "system download" is one in which a document (a purchase order, say) used in a machine-mediated transaction references a schema, and an application attempting to process the document wants to get that schema without human intervention in order to validate the document against that schema. This is the bare minimum of functionality as I understand it. Assuming that the application knows how to handle whatever form of schema it finds when it retrieves the thing, there is a question of what to do when the schema is actually a composite of several modules, as in the case of DocBook. >From an initial reading of Terry's message, I get the impression that the submitter in this case has to submit the composite schema needed for automatic validation as a registered item in its own right, even if the separate modules that make it up are also registered items. Is this correct? If this is not correct, I'm going to guess in advance that there is in theory a way to reconstruct the composite schema from a "specification of relationships among related data." If this is the case, can there be more than one "specification of relationships among related data," and can there be a standard way of pointing to which "specification of relationships among related data" allows an application in the minimum case correctly to assemble the composite schema? Jon
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC