RE: [Xmlastro-discussion] Multiple Objects

[Peter D. <pr...@nt...>]

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