Question - can I use (and get used to) the new ide while I still develop with .net 1.1? If so, how can I change the IDE to use the 1.1? I have downloaded the express edition c# and visual web 2005.

# Adding a carriage return (WITHOUT SPACES): & # x 0 D ; # Adding a line feed (WITHOUT SPACES): & # x 0 A ; & # x 0 A ; YOU DO NOT NEED Function ReturnCharacter return VbCrlf End Function

Do you mean prefixes namespaces on elements? If so use "exclude-result-prefixes" Eg: exclude-result-prefixes="msxsl"> If, not, please be more specific!!

I just ran your xml/xsl in cooktop and it gave me the correct result -

Step Name: First step

Cal sps 1 153 Cal sps 1 153 Cal sps 1 153

Step Name: another step

Cal sps 1 153 Cal sps 1 153 Cal sps 1 153 ------ I did not see the DOC element in your xml - so the only change I made is: To me your loops should work the way you want!

http://www.katsueydesignworks.com/tutorials_databases.htm

Thanks. I agree that the database does not heve to be normalised to the smallest detail as it would effect perfomance and make the queries more complex. But like Colin pointed out: In otherwords, design the model as normalised as possible, then denormalise it afterwards if you find performance problems. I want to take this one step further - not denormalise it but use its structure to dynamically create only the required tables/relations. It might be a good idea to kind of explain what I am trying to do. The model I am trying to build will not actually contain any data, but its structure will be used (schema - which could be in xml format) to generate a database that will only contain the tables and structure required by the user. For example: User may want to store a telephone list - name and all the related phone numbers - so I would pick only the necessary tables (person,phonegroup,phone) and their relationships from the schema and create the database. Then he might want another DB to have all company info... So the idea is to "morph". For this I need all the conceivable possibility for the schema. Now I know this may not be the best approach for this kind of application and suggestions are welcome. Thanks!

Thanks! You have clarified a number of things that always confused me. Appreciate it.

Design wise this makes sense, but in practice this would mean that I have to add the address record before I could refer to it from the person or company table, which seems backward as it would allow me to add addresses without requiring it be used. So I could end up with addresses which are orphaned (as no one refers to them). I am new at this so I do not know if this is normal pattern?

Colin Angus Mackay wrote: A person can have a homeAddressID column which will be a foreign key to the address table A company can have an addressID column which, again, will be a foreign key for the address table. Sorry for the bother! Does this mean that "homeAddressID" in the address table will be null when the address belongs to the company ( and vice versa ) ?

I believe you have a point because: (quick type, excuse mistakes - just to make a point) select p.*, c.companyname from person p inner join personcompany pc on p.personid = pc.personid inner join company c on pc.companyid = c.companyid where pc.relationtype="IsEmployee" group by c.companyid would give the same result as the following which does not use the where clause: select p.*, c.companyname from person p inner join company-employs-person pc on p.personid = pc.personid inner join company c on pc.companyid = c.companyid group by c.companyid I'll experiment with both and see which is faster.Thanks.

Colin Angus Mackay wrote: so you have a person_owns_company table and a company_employs_person table Question: Would it be better to add the above two tables or one one table called "PersonCompany" with foreignkeys: PersonID and CompanyID and one field called "RelationType" eg: IsEmployee or IsOwner. (kind of like a crossreference). Of course this would also be two tables if I introduce a separate table called "TypeTable" and use it to lookup the "RelationType". Any suggestions?

Thanks Colin, This helps a lot. The clear, logical and objective perspective is what i needed. And I looked at your Blog - browsed quickly through Normalising the data model. Looks very informative, will go and read it again. Its cool.

This helps. Interesting that you brought in the location...I thought about it after I posted the question and ended with a headache. How would you handle if you wanted to specify the location for the person's workplace. Say Jill works for company foo, which have 5 locations, and Jill is in location 3. In other words, how would you tie person with company location using the above scenario? And Thanks!

I have a question - I am trying to design a database - contacts - and I have seen many around but do not serve my purposes - so I started with my requirements: The logical breakdown where: - the adress stored could belong to an individual or company. - the relationship of person to company could be one person can own multiple companies but one company could be the employer of many persons. - Thus - the address could be the address of the company but also of the person's work address or the address could be the persons personal address (and have nothing to do with the company - say an unemployed alcoholic who is a good friend). I am gong in circles - any suggestions? I have not even started into the phone table yet!