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)

> > complexity than this). Using local types made schema design and
> > maintenance much simpler than if every element name in the schema had to
> > be uniquely typed. But it it also makes it harder for me to comprehend
> > correctly even the relatively small (1-2Kb) messages that we typcially
> > deal with.
> Maybe you do not use attributes, but if you do, do you have problems
> comprehending them because typically they are not in a namespace? Why are
> local element types different?
I do use attributes - the difference is simply complexity. An
attribute's type is determined by its context, which is always its
parent. Local elements can be layered all the way up to a single global
root element. If you have n layers of local elements above an element
whose type you are tying to determine, you have n possible determining
contexts, of which n-1 are themselves of indeterminate type. 

In other words attributes are self-evident, but  local elements require
either schema-aware tools, schema coding standards or possibly both.