Re: Antw: Re: Revised proposal for QUERY DTD

[Vivien Malerba <malerba linuxave net>]

On jeu, 13 jui 2000, you wrote:
> 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

If you can't get it, tell me and I'll send it to you.

Cheers,

Vivien