[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: XML Schemas: Best Practices

• From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 13:20:36 -0800

"Roger L. Costello" wrote:

> I like the Chameleon approach even more!  Rather than starting a
> component's life out in a rigid, static, fixed namespace, the Chameleon
> approach frees them so that applications can decide on a domain
> (namespace) for the components. Furthermore, applications can
> refine/customize the Chameleon components.  This approach requires an
> extra step but in return it gives you a lot of flexibility.  Wow!
> 
> What are your thoughts on this?

"Rigid, static, fixed". Boy, can't tell where your loyalties lie ;)

Since this uses namespaces to resolve name collisions, it works for me.

I'm still a bit dubious about not assigning components to namespaces to
start with, but then I am a rigid, static, fixed kinda guy :)

-- 
Ronald Bourret
Programming, Writing, and Training
XML, Databases, and Schemas
http://www.rpbourret.com

• References:
  • Re: XML Schemas: Best Practices
    • From: Sam Hunting <sam_hunting@y...>
  • Re: XML Schemas: Best Practices
    • From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>
  • Re: XML Schemas: Best Practices
    • From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML Schemas: Best Practices
• Next by Date: Re: XML Schemas: Best Practices
• Previous by thread: Re: XML Schemas: Best Practices
• Next by thread: Re: XML Schemas: Best Practices
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread