But the same verbosity is imposed upon the user of the validation schem=
e
as well, right?
As for sciping the DOM creation, I don't think you could, could you?
Because of the open ended nature of the validation mechanism, if it was=
done as an element and its subcontent, there could be a lot of informat=
ion
in there that only the target validation function would understand how =
to
make use of. How would you get that information to the function if you
didn't either use my scheme of giving him an open ended string that he
can parse, or building some known format (i.e. a DOM node) to pass to i=
t?
I dunno. In some ways you win and lose either way. Given the very open
endedness of the scheme, I'd prefer the single formula style. But that'=
s
just my opinion, and I'm looking at it from a user's point of view not
a machine's. From a machine's point of view, the element scheme would
probably be more useful.
"One thing that we are doing is adding an documentation fragments to th=
at
we can process DCD and generate HTMLHelp manuals for the schemas we are=
developing. Doing constraints as XML elements, would give us somewhere=
to explain the constraints."
That's a good point.
----------------------------------------
Dean Roddey
Software Weenie
IBM Center for Java Technology - Silicon Valley
roddey@us.ibm.com
=