• From: "bryan rasmussen" <rasmussen.bryan@g...>
• To: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
• Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:05:46 +0100

Good point. But then that can be said without reference to benefits
for any particular other technology.

Cheers,
Bryan Rasmussen

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Michael Kay <mike@s...> wrote:
> > Anyway I think my main objection is I don't want to see best
>  > practices in a technology based on making it work best with
>  > some other technology, unless it is a more targeted best
>  > practice for that exact purpose. This of course is different
>  > than noting what parts of a particular technology make it a
>  > poor fit for working with others.
>
>  I think there's a different way of looking at this. If you want to use a
>  schema only for validation, then it doesn't matter if many of the constructs
>  within it are unnamed. If you want to use the schema as a repository of type
>  definitions accessible throughout the system, then it's a good idea to give
>  more of the components global names so that they can be referenced from
>  outside. That's not so much about bending your schema to fit some other
>  technology, it's about maximising its value as a reusable asset.
>
>  Michael Kay
>  http://www.saxonica.com/
>
>

• References:
  • XML Schema Design: no local elements with anonymous types
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • Re: XML Schema Design: no local elements with anonymous types
    • From: "bryan rasmussen" <rasmussen.bryan@g...>
  • RE: XML Schema Design: no local elements with anonymous types
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>