Yes, this is exactly what I'm aiming at.
Mark Tucker wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> I'm not sure what you said about typenames and attribute
> names, but I wonder if it is this problem. XML ELEMENT names are
> confused about whether they are acting as programming language "type
> names", or as programming language "field names".
[snip]
> <RECTANGLE> -- type
> <lower-left> -- field
> <POINT> -- type
> <x>3</x> -- field
> <y>4</y>
> <POINT>
> </lower-left>
...
> </RECTANGLE>
In a strongly typed system you could also write it like this
<rectangle>
<lower-left><x>3</x><y>4</y></lower-left>
...
</rectanlge>
And the fact that lower-left is of type point would be expressed
in the schema. I guess that architectural forms
provide the basic machinery to express these relations at the
XML level (that is structurally), but I would also like
to formally express the relations of types and names in the
application level with some schema.
Cheers,
</David>
___________________________________________________________________
David.Rosenborg@xsse.se OM Exchange Technology