|
From: Peter D. <pr...@nt...> - 2003-04-02 21:12:14
|
Perhaps I'm missing the point but whats wrong with simply having: <object> and <objects> The former being singular and the latter, well, plural. I'd also like different sub-schemas for different categories. Aurora observations gather different data than that obtained for deep-sky. Sounds kinda like hard work if you're trying to shoehorn all this lot into a single schema. jtm Peter -----Original Message----- From: xml...@li... [mailto:xml...@li...]On Behalf Of Tom Wright Sent: 02 April 2003 15:49 To: XMLastro Discussion Subject: Re: [Xmlastro-discussion] Multiple Objects On Wed, 02 Apr 2003 14:24:47 +0200, Don Willems <don...@ma...> wrote: >> >> I like <object-group> better myself. I agree that it seems to convey the >> intended meaning more accurately than <object-list>. >> > > Do we all agree on this? > Shall I include it in our schema? > Sounds good to me. Tom ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Xmlastro-discussion mailing list Xml...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlastro-discussion |