OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Namespaces, W3C XML Schema (was Re: ANN: SAX FiltersforNamespaceProcessing)

> 3. They are actively encouraged to write documents this way because that
>    is the way it's taught in XML training courses and books.

Are they?

> 4. They copied an example from the SOAP specification.

As someone mentioned, this is an open issue in XMLP.

> The reason Simon wrote his filter in the first place was in reaction to
> something taught by a very respected XML trainer.

That is not what I got out of his original message. Correct me if I'm wrong

> correctly (and I'm sure there are several here who will help me out if
> that isn't the case) conversation with Henry Thompson and others earlier
> in the year yielded the interesting observation that those who teach W3C
> XML Schemas teach use of either unqualified child elements or qualified
> ones -- but neither camp teach a mix.  Clearly there's a "best practice"
> issue at stake.

I can't comment on specific teachings, but I have no doubt I would have
differences of opinion on what is a best practice. And a best practice in
one domain is not nescessarily a best practice in another domain.

> Your assertion that "[W3C XML] Schema isn't to blame" is wrong -- if the
> new model of document processing brought about by W3C XML Schema didn't
> exist, ie. the ability to imply the semantic relationship between the
> child and parent elements, then there wouldn't be a confusion.

There has always been an implied semantic relationship between parent and
child in XML. Otherwise, why create hierarchical documents in the first

> Personally speaking, I can't say I saw this pattern of XML usage much
> before 'Schema.

I don't see it being used much after Schema, except in contrived examples.

> Seems to me that it would be better if all the respected trainers and
> writers would land firmly on one side of this argument, rather than
> differing.

I can't speak to this as I do not know who they are or where they stand.
Myself, I do not see a need to use unqualified elements in my uses of XML,
but I'm also big enough to realize the XML world doesn't revolve around me
and others may have good reasons for using them.