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

Re: XML Schemas: Best Practices

• From: Sam Hunting <sam_hunting@y...>
• To: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 08:23:46 -0800 (PST)

Roger--

It sounds really great, but my simple mind could use an example...

S.

--- "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...> wrote:
> Hi Folks,
> 
> I need your feedback on the schema design approach which I have been
> calling the "Chameleon Namespace design".  Recall that with this
> design
> approach you do not assign a targetNamespace to your schemas.  The
> schema components are thus in "no-namespace".  When another schema
> <include>s the no-namespace components, the components take on the
> namespace of the schema doing the <include> (hence, the name
> "Chameleon").
> 
> I am really excited about this design approach.  I see many benefits.
> 
> It is such a novel and exciting design strategy.  
> 
> I fear, however, that in my exuberance I may have blinders on and may
> not be seeing the disadvantages.  I need you to help open my eyes to
> any
> downsides.  Below I have listed what I perceive to be the benefits of
> this approach: 
> 
> - The components in the schemas with no targetNamespace (the
> "no-namespace" components) are infinitely malleable - they are able
> to
> take on the namespace of any schema that <include>s or <redefine>s
> them
> (the Chameleon effect). 
> 
> - The no-namespace components can be reused by any schema. 
> 
> - The no-namespace components can assume many different semantics.
> For
> each schema that <include>s them, they can take on a new role and new
> semantics. 
> 
> - The no-namespace components can be <redefine>d by any schema,
> regardless of the schema's targetNamespace. 
> 
> - The no-namespace components are not "fenced in" by a namespace.
> They
> are free, independent, and with no boundaries. They owe their
> allegiance
> to no namespace! 
> 
> Pretty powerful design, aye?  It enables a whole new breed of
> reusable
> components.  As excited as I am about this design approach, I am also
> struggling with it because it really strikes at the heart of
> namespaces,
> and calls into question their value.  At minimum, it relegates 
> namespaces to a lesser (or different) role.
> 
> What are your thoughts on this design approach?  /Roger
> 


=====
<? "To imagine a language is to imagine a form of life."
    -- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations ?>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
From homework help to love advice, Yahoo! Experts has your answer.
http://experts.yahoo.com/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML Schemas: Best Practices
    • From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>

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