Re: Element sets, schemas, and record syntaxes

> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:15:19 +1100
> From: Alan Kent <ajk@mds.rmit.edu.au>
> 
> I think its wrong to say element sets are part of schemas.

I'm sorry; I'm not going to argue either way, but I think this
arrangment (for XML only) is a done deal.  (That said, a few moments'
grovelling around the Maintenance Agency site doesn't turn up the
Implementor Agreement/clarification/amendment/whatever it was.)

> > ... though of course Explain Classic is at best moribund these days.
> 
> It may be, but we still use it every day in our product. We had to
> add a new category to map CCL/CQL like field names to attribute
> lists reliably, but other than that Explain Classic is useful.

Oh, OK -- that's nice to know.  I bet you don't run into too many
interoperability problems with other people's Explain Classic
implementations, though!  :-)

 _/|_	 _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <mike@indexdata.com>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "`Pavement' -- I win!" -- Sunny.

--
Listen to my wife's new CD of kids' music, _Child's Play_, at
	http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/childsplay/

Received on Friday, 20 February 2004 07:41:42 UTC