[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: XML Schemas: 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! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|