Re: Do we need link-catalogs for schemas?

Murray Maloney (murray@muzmo.com)
Fri, 9 Oct 1998 13:41:32 -0400


At 01:19 PM 10/9/98 -0400, Bill la Forge wrote:
>Two concerns here:
>
> 1. There should be a way to cascade whole Bind documents,
> not just individual entries, as well as adopting a
> first-encountered
> entry rule. This would allow one Bind to override another,
> dropping inappropriate items under an entry.

So, just as a stylesheet could be designed for a particular DTD,
so too could a Bindings document. Or a Bindings document might
apply to a "library" of element/attribute definitions.

I think that you are also underscoring a need for delegation.

I'm not yet sure whether I agree with the first-encountered rule.
We need to examine the cost of not allowing bindings to be cumulative.

>
> 2. Binding an entry to a class should be accomplished without
> recourse to a link. This would allow for light-weight bindings.

That would be one way to look at it. Another way to keep it
fairly light-weight is to allow that a set of Bindings might
be contained in the same document. Thus, we would maintain
a link mechanism is all cases, but allow for the equivalent
of a fragment identifier (#) to say that te Binding is located
in the self-same document.

Murray Maloney, Esq. Phone: (905) 509-9120
Muzmo Communication Inc. Fax: (905) 509-8637
671 Cowan Circle Email: murray@muzmo.com
Pickering, Ontario Email: murray@yuri.org
Canada, L1W 3K6