>> > would make the ENTITY reference as it was.
>>
>> > Granted, it's not the best solution and there may be a change in the works
>> >(adding the "&" from SGML back to
>
> I've not seen a proposal to add it...
> But it is handy in SGML.
After reading more (O'Reilly book), it seems they specifically did _not_ want that option included as well as
specifying how many items could be included. I guess that's why Relax, TRex, and Schema's are attracting
so much attention.
>> > XML), but for now, this is the simplest solution. I'd hate to spend a lot of time to come up with a hairy
>> > ELEMENT definition only to have it removed later (in a future revision). Sound reasonable?
>
> On reading your post there:
> I personally want to be able to, for example, include azimuth multiple times if it
> was read multiple times. (It affects the error model.)
I think I've got that covered. Here's the basic shot (basic cave survey shot) declaration:
<!ELEMENT Basic (Station+, Direction?, Azimuth+, Distance, (Inclination | Depth)+, Walls*,
InstrumentHeight?, TargetHeight?)>
I originally had two Station Elements around the Direction Element but that was making things kind of weird in
DTDExplorer. Anyway, this still works but the order is a little off. That might not be a problem if the
OrderFormat works out.
I'm also still thinking more about the Depth Element. On a u/w survey, the depth they read is actually the
Elevation (Cartesian coordinate) for the station, not a part of the shot vector. I was thinking it might be better
to put with the Station than with the Shot. Will that work with an Elevation/Level survey? Comments?
> What was the DTD that the parser I pointed at choked on?
The one I posted. But it may be due to it not being _in_ an XML document (separate DTD).
>> If you look at my web pages, I have lots of stuff worth stealing.
I started digging around there. I read the article on "Internal Angles" and started the one on "Survey Network
Adjustment". (I didn't realize it wasn't all there and just printed the TOC. Oops!). Nicely done. It actually makes
sense.
But the question is how to get that into the DTD? Would it be in the format you listed under "Rearrangement"
and leave it up to the surveyors to reorder the data or would it be better to support BackStation,
InstrumentStation, and FrontStation?
- Richard Knapp
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 18:00:00 CEST