xml-dev - Re: XML Schemas: Best Practices - Chameleon design

["Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@home.com>]

Roger L. Costello writes -

> Very good points Paul (and welcome back!)
>
> You first design suggestion is to keep no-namespace
schemas small, so
> that schemas which wish to use the Chameleon components in
the
> no-namespace schema will not get a lot of unwanted
components.
>
> Good point.  Since the Chameleon components are context
(namespace)
> independent, there is no reason for creating no-namespace
schemas with
> lots of components.  Actually, now that you bring it up, I
think that
> the Chameleon design implicitly suggests lots of small
no-namespace
> schemas rather than a few, big no-namespace schemas.
>

Schema omponents, when included into a schema, take on the
parent schema's target namespace, if they are not already in
it or don't have one of their own.  This suddenly reminded
me of the new import syntax in Python (I don't know how many
other languages already have it too):

import spam as eggs

This lets you have your cake and eat it too - your
components can be referred to by any namespace you want.
Seems to me that this is very close to what Cameleon
provides.  This sounds like a GOOD THING to me.

Cheers,

Tom Passin