Re: Antw: Re: Revised proposal for QUERY DTD

[Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo linuxave net>]

Gerhard Dieringer wrote:
> 
> Vivien Malerba wrote:
> 
> > ...
> > I've had a look at your proposal and here are some comments/questions:
> > * I think you are right to put upper case keywords for elements and lowe case
> > for attributes, and also for the renaming of the inf, etc
> > * Why did you remove the 'id' attribute from the QUERY element? Its purpose was
> > to give a name to the query.
> > * Why did you remove the 'allfield' element? Do you prefer to mention all the
> > fields of a rable rather than using the * symbol?
> > * Why did you remove the 'aggregate' element? I think it is usefull to make the
> > difference between aggregates and functions.
> > * I agree with you on the joins, since you seem to know more about them than me.
> > * I agree to move the table and view names as attributes, and the const value
> > as an attribute, it is more logical.
> > * I agree with your sorting scheme.
> > * I also agree on the use of NMTOKEN instead of CDATA
> >
> > Tell me what your opinion is on the questions I have had so far.
> > Regards,
> >
> > Vivien
> 
> The answer to all these questions is very simple:
> I didn't remove these elements/attributes because the version that I started with (send to gnome-db-list at 18.04.2000) did not contain them.
> If you send me your last version, I will try to merge the changes.
> 
The version Vivien is talking about is on CVS, on the
gda-common/gda-xml-query.dtd file