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

RE: infinite depth to namespaces

  • From: "Fuchs, Matthew" <matthew.fuchs@c...>
  • To: "'Simon St.Laurent'" <simonstl@s...>
  • Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 11:46:20 -0700

RE: infinite depth to namespaces
Right.  Which is why, if you're going to use local elements in a schema, you
should make them unqualified, as that works best with existing software.
See my response to Rick.

This also shows that best practices need to evolve.  While "put everything
in a namespace" was reasonable best practice before the arrival of XSDL, the
concretization of a notion of "local elements" (I hesitate to call it
"formalization") - just as the Namespaces rec concretized the notion of
"global attribute", which hadn't existed syntactically before, although
people used them - can change what best practices can be.  And best
practices for local elements is unqualified.

Matthew

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...]
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 11:22 AM
> To: Fuchs, Matthew
> Cc: xml-dev@l...
> Subject: RE: infinite depth to namespaces
> 
> 
> On 31 Aug 2001 10:40:14 -0700, Fuchs, Matthew wrote:
> > Perhaps because there is often no single "best-practice" - 
> I think I'd
> > expect you of all people to realize that.  Often what is 
> most important is
> > there be consistent practice - the principle of least 
> surprise, or something
> > like that.  Consistency is often more important than optimality.
> 
> I think you must have a rather different understanding of "best
> practices" from mine.  My understand of "best practices" 
> isn't "optimal
> way to do things" but rather "how best to avoid difficulties 
> within the
> context of a given specification set".  In that understanding, best
> practice typically values consistency as much as (and frequently more
> than) optimality.
> 
> Common XML [1], for instance, is a best practices document focused on
> consistency rather than making optimal use of XML 1.0's features.
> 
> I had thought this usage of "best practices" was pretty ordinary in
> computing (things like IETF Best Current Practice documents), 
> but maybe
> it's rarer than I'd thought.
> 
> I'd originally written:
> > > Simple best-practice solutions are fairly easy to come up 
> with, but
> > > seemingly just as easy to shoot down, suggesting that there 
> > > may never be
> > > consensus on these issues.
> 
> [1] - http://simonstl.com/articles/cxmlspec.txt
> 
> Simon St.Laurent
> 

PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!

Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
Email
First Name
Last Name
Company
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
 

Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats, enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.


Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website. they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please click here.

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.