[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: "'Arnold, Curt'" <Curt.Arnold@h...>,"'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 13:12:48 -0700

Which was a use case Rick brought up.  While retaining the right to dissent
at a later time - i.e., I haven't thought about it enough - this sounds
reasonable enough.  It certainly falls into the notion of validation being
the addition of constraints to WF.

Matthew

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arnold, Curt [mailto:Curt.Arnold@h...]
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 11:58 AM
> To: 'xml-dev@l...'
> Subject: 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.
> 
> I think it depends whether the element is defined locally to 
> enforce a context specific constraint or if the element is 
> defined locally since it has no meaning (or possibly 
> ambiguous meaning) outside
> of its context.
> 
> If, for example, I want to constrain a person element so that 
> it must have at least one child if it appears a <parents> 
> element but the element can appear outside of that outside of 
> that context
> without that constraint, I would suggest the best way to 
> encode that constraint within the current capabilities of XML 
> schema would be to declare a namespace qualified global 
> element without the
> constraint and a local namespace qualified element with the 
> constraint in the appropriate context.
> 
> If <person> has the same meaning and general structure in all 
> uses in a schema but only differs due to constraints due to 
> context, the it is better to have them all qualified so that 
> XSLT and other
> technologies can recognize them as the same concept, instead 
> of totally unrelated concepts.
> 
> > 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
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> 
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
> 

• Prev by Date: Really Understood W3C Schema Complex Types?
• Next by Date: RE: The tragedy of the commons
• Previous by thread: RE: infinite depth to namespaces
• Next by thread: Document Object Model (DOM) Level 3 XPath Specification updated
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread