On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:23:17 -0700 Ronald Bourret <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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. I do have the same expectations here. > 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. Lars -- ______________________________________________________________________ Lars Martin mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SMB GmbH http://www.smb-tec.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact adminstrator: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Read archived messages: http://archive.xmldb.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------
