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

[Paul Spencer <paul.spencer@boynings.co.uk>]

Yes, I put that *very* badly. The problem is more that the stuff comes into
our namespace, and we don't know what is there. But that is what I am trying
to do. What you suggest is what I *really* want - only bring in those
definitions that I use. Sounds like some XSLT pre-processing, but that is
also less than perfect.

I want to put some time into thinking about this. In particular, what we can
do with elementFormDefault="unqualified". I will certainly keep you up to
date on my thoughts.

-----Original Message-----
From: Roger L. Costello [mailto:costello@mitre.org]
Sent: 08 November 2000 12:43
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: XML Schemas: Best Practices - Chameleon design


Paul Spencer wrote:
>
> But as long as we have an <include> rather than an <import>
> we run the risk of getting too much rubbish that we don't want.

Paul, I don't understand this statement.  Let's compare the <include>
element versus the <import> element:

<include>: This element enables a schema to reuse components that are in
another schema, provided the other schema has the same targetNamespace,
or, has no targetNamespace.

  Example. <include schemaLocation="BookCatalogue.xsd"/>

<import>: This element enables a schema to reuse components that are in
another schema, provided the other schema has a different
targetNamespace.

  Example. <import namespace="http://www.example.com"
                   schemaLocation="Example.xsd"/>

Both elements bring in *all* the components of the schema being
referenced.

...