[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)

xml schema best practices
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/

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.