[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Outputs
David and Others, If the CAM is going to be used to output info as well as validate input, A very wide spec I think, but we may well at least think big what about the following: We have Assembly structures that describe how something looks. We have rules that describe the effects of context on the input file. Why not use the same analogy for output. We current define an output set of rules but not directly linked to a structure. What about defining in the External Mapping section a Structure and a set of rules. Also this would work well with the mail merge view of the world where the input fields could be named, or given ids or aliased and then these could be used in the output structure which would reduce the rules. So we could have: AssembleStructure as: <Order> <Header> <OrderDate>$OrderDate</OrderDate> <Buyer>$BuyerID</Buyer> ... </Header> <Body> ... </Body> </Order> Output would be: <PurchaseOrder> <POHeader Date="$OrderDate"/> <Party function="Buyer" ID="$BuyerID"/> .... I think you can se my logic. The restrictions on this are: 1) Only transformations based on input data are allowed. 2) Only one data input is supported (may be need to allow referencing of ebXMl and Soap attachments for examples) 3) Aliases or XPATHs in to input would be supported. 4) Output rules include functions such as substring etc. I can see this being really powerful. Martin Roberts xml designer, BT Exact e-mail: martin.me.roberts@bt.com tel: +44(0) 1473 609785 clickdial fax: +44(0) 1473 609834 Intranet Site :http://twiki.btlabs.bt.co.uk/twiki
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]