Ralph Hartley wrote:
> But not only are names ugly, they are also untrustworthy and
> incompatible. They really need to be converted into something universal
> and unambiguous. This translation needs to be done AS CLOSE TO THE
> SOURCE OF THE DATA AS POSSIBLE. Otherwise something will be lost in
> translation.
I couldn't agree more! It is just the initial translation might be
from shots with names to shots and points with IDs.
My thoughts on allowing names or Ids was still along the lines of
playing with the idea of allowing some users to generate something
very simple maybe using a generic XML editor so that possibly
someone with a laptop could type in yesterdays survey while in
the field and send it in for processing (or add to the system be
importing into some package). The problem there is that a certain
flexibility to allow nearly raw caveXML probably is a challenge
to not provide 'too much' flexiblity so that a more standardized
form doesn't get broken.
> How do those editors handle attributes of type IDREF? If there is no
> matching ID, the file is not valid XML. Do "XML editors" always produce
> valid XML?
I'd be interested in how much work these editors put into understanding
IDREFs also. I'd be surprised if they do anything at all, thus the need
to
allow just shots with names, to be later converted into some kind
of canonical form. I'm all for some canonical form, but maybe some
flexibility to allow a simplier "pre-canonical" form.
-Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 18:00:00 CEST