xml-dev - RE: XML Schemas: Best Practices

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

On *reflection*, let me answer that another way 
with this question:
 
Do you think the use of XML data is made easier 
if a vocabulary processor has a public interface?

I am a bit concerned that this discussion ends up with 
the namespace declaration becoming a public signature 
for a set of interfaces inherited by namespace scoping 
and invoked by some magical XPath invocation 
of the prefixes or something.   At that point in design
or development, wouldn't you prefer C# or Java over XML?
   
I used to think I'd like to program in markup, but 
Liam Quin and Dave Durand cured me of the notion and 
XSLT came along to remove most of the reasons I thought I 
needed to.

"At first glance, implementation inheritance looks and smells like 
a cheeseburger, while interface inheritance looks like a bowl of 
steamed broccoli. You have to get beyond the desire to have the 
cheeseburger to reach a higher level of interface awareness. 
The key advantage of interface inheritance over implementation 
inheritance is that it is not vulnerable to the tight coupling 
that compromises the extensibility of an application."

Ted Pattison - Microsoft (Jan. 1999)

Len
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Hodder, Ed [mailto:Ed.Hodder@Bowne.com]

> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@ingr.com]
> One may not be satisfied with "application defines 
> semantic", but that is reality.

> From: Roger L. Costello
> Application specific 
> semantics do not facilitate data interoperability.

So is the question really "Will an application's use of XML data be
facilitated by providing that data with a domain or context?"

Ed