Re: Converting DTDs (and DTD developers) to RELAX NG schemas
Mitch Amiano <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.relaxng.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
"Auxiliary" is suggestive of a subordinated role. Ditto for "add-on", which sounds like a band-aid(tm). "Adjunct" sounds a litle more academic, but is also a discounting term. You might consider the goals your technique addresses... the value of the role proposed for the relaxng schemas in the use-case. How about "migration schema" (schemas used in migrating from one validation workflow to another), "refinement schema" (schemas which refine the precision with which an existing workflow can perform validation), or "articulation schema" (schemas which provide controlled jointing between other schemas, addressing different validation goals). [email protected] wrote: > Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:44:55 -0500 > From: "DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO)" <[email protected]> > Subject: [relaxng-user] "Converting DTDs (and DTD developers) to RELAX > NG schemas" paper > To: [email protected] > I've written a paper /snip/ > One question I have in particular is whether "add-on schema," as I've termed > it, is the most appropriate name for a schema that specifies constraints to > be used in conjunction with a DTD, or if another term makes more sense, such > as "auxiliary schema."