[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Suggested guidelines for using local types. (was Re: Enlightenmentvi
Rick Jelliffe wrote: 007f01c131bf$fd43ad30$4bc8a8c0@A...">I have followed this discussion for some time. Refrained from piping in because I do not have a clear answer to the questions posed.\. I think (not sure yet) that I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to achieve the robustness to extensibility that all of us desire. We can choose to restrict the use of locally ambiguous names like in databases, where a table can not have 2 columns with the same label. Which would mean IMHO, extensibility preserved with some restrictions. It is a bit redundant given the context is already there, but will certainly make the code robust to the extensibility of schema. I can see some unworkable scenarios like buyer_officer_name and seller_officer_name. It is not hard to imagine how this can become unwieldy. On the other hand, it almost seems inconceivable that we can come up with a solution that would remove fragility of code forever. What happens if we choose to invent a new type? Is it possible that we would have to rewrite code to account for this change? I think we are ignoring the fact that over time, definitions would change. A label that is unique today may not be unique tomorrow and code will have to be rewritten to account for that. It is only in context (and the context includes the time as well) that we understand labels, don't we? Regards, Soumitra
|
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
|