[Ex-plain] ElementSets == Schemas

Mike Taylor mike at tecc.co.uk
Thu Apr 11 15:02:06 CEST 2002

> Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 19:45:19 +0100 (BST)
> From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth at liverpool.ac.uk>
> One thing that came out of the ZIG was that elementsets should be
> used to convey which schema/dtd was wanted, using the same
> representation as name spaces.
> So, to get a full explain record we might send:
> record syntax = XML, 
> elementset name = http://explain.z3950.org/schemas/v1.6/F/
> Which makes a certain amount of sense to me.

Hmm.  I am not totally wild about this, but if that's what the ZIG's
decided or deciding for XML in general, then of course we will just go
along with it.

But Ray/Rob, please confirm: the idea here is that this kind of
element-set name should be usable _as well as_ the more usual "f" and
"b" rather than instead ... right?  Otherwise we're treating XML
completely separately from other record syntaxes, which is absolutely
not the way to go.

> These URNs don't need to resolve to anything, just be a unique
> identifier.

OK, like namespaces.  Is that what's generally done for XML schemas?
(I use "schema" with a lower-case "s" here to indicate that I mean it
in the general, abstract sense, encompassing both DTDs and capital-"S"

 _/|_	 _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor   <mike at miketaylor.org.uk>   www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "The tale grew in the telling" -- Opening words of
	 J. R. R. Tolkein's foreword to _The Lord of the Rings_.

More information about the Ex-plain mailing list