Re: Antw: reports (clarification)

["Gerhard Dieringer" <DieringG eba-haus de>]

>>> Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo linuxave net> 22.09.2000  11.12 Uhr >>>
> ...
> why not use the same DTD, but with a, for example, <DATA> section filled
> in with the data? It's just an idea, but I think it makes sense, for not
> having several DTDs around, but only one.
 
I don't want many DTDs but exactly 2:
- one for the report template, that the report designer or any other application creats
  and sends to to populating-engine.
- a second one for the report populated with data, that is send to the rendering-engine.

The report engine has to do some changes with the structure of the report.
The template has a tree structure:

....
<reportdata>
  <groupheader newpage="yes">
    --  some report-elements
  </groupheader>
  <reportdata>
    <groupheader newpage="no">
       --  some report-elements
    </groupheader>
    <reportdata>
      <detail>
        --  some report-elements
      </detail>
    </reportdata>
    <groupfooter>
      --  some report-elements
    </groupfooter>
  </reportdata>
  <groupfooter>
    --  some report-elements
  </groupfooter>
</reportdata>
....



In the populated report, we don't need to distinguish groupheaders, groupfooters
and detailsections, we only have data sections and so we have a simple list
of data sections

...
<data newpage="yes">
  --  some report-elements   (was outer group header)
</data>
<data newpage="no">
  --  some report-elements   (was inner group header)
</data>
<data newpage="no">
  --  some report-elements   (was detail-section)
</data>
<data newpage="no">
  --  some report-elements (also detail-section)
</data>
....
<data newpage="no">
  --  some report-elements   (was inner group footer)
</data>
<data newpage="no">
  --  some report-elements   (was inner group header)
</data>
...
many more data sections

IMO the populating-step and the rendering-step are very different. Therefore we
have two related, but different XML-file-formats (=DTDs)

---------------
Gerhard