Kimbro Staken wrote: > I'm not really sure about that. It seems much more likely that you're either > going to have a collection to store XML or to store binary but not both. > This is especially true when you look at associating schemas at the > collection level. Tamino would be a prime example of this. You can store > binary but as far as I know it must be in a different collection.
I'm coming at this as a naive user, but I think of collections the same way I think of directories in a file system -- a way to organize things by topic, not by file type. For example, if I have an XML document that references an unparsed entity, I expect to store the XML document and the unparsed entity in the same collection. Are collections closer to tables? That is, a set of things that share the same schema? If so, what are the end user benefits of this? Do I get automatic schema validation? Automatic indexing? etc. -- Ron ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact adminstrator: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Read archived messages: http://archive.xmldb.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------
