Re: [Xmlastro-discussion] Multiple Objects

[Don W. <don...@ma...>]

>
>
>Perhaps I'm missing the point but whats wrong with simply having:
>
><object> and <objects>
>
>The former being singular and the latter, well, plural
>
Didn't think of that one. Sounds good to me!

>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.
>
There is only one problem with multiple schemas that I can see. If you 
want the user to validate his/her documents he/she would need to have 
all of the schemas. I don't think it is a big problem, as most users 
will probably use an application which can be bundled with the schemas.