[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
- Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 13:31:51 -0400
At 12:18 PM 10/9/00 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>Those who think it can be done without namespaces
>and schemas are the ones putting the ring
>on their relationships customers. Lock in happens
>because of laissez-faire contracting. A pre-nup
>helps when it gets down to renegotiating.
I agree to some extent, but I think you're substituting a ball and chain
for a wedding ring.
Using namespaces to identify vocabularies, even when there's only a single
vocabulary in a document, seems like a good thing to me, making it much
easier for a single entry point to process all kinds of information.
Similarly, laying ground rules with schemas does make it reasonably clear
what's supposed to be in a document.
On the other hand, both of those tools can be (ab)used to create problems
for users as well as solutions. Schemas aren't _always_ necessary for
simple projects, and creative namespace-prefix usage can cause hassles for
developers who didn't really need namespaces in the first place.
I'd advise developers to take a look at the entire context of their
contracting negotiations, and not rely on namespaces and schemas to solve
their problems for them. They can be useful tools, but I don't think
they're either required or complete.
At the same time, I'd like to see the organizations handing down the
infrastructure standards take a good look at how to make these things more
usable with their own standards, so that these interoperability enablers
don't turn out to be roadblocks. Right now, I'm not very happy with the
cost/benefit ratio of a lot of the specs that are supposed to make XML
better or more interoperable.
Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
XHTML: Migrating Toward XML
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books
|
