007f01c131bf$fd43ad30$4bc8a8c0@AlletteSystems.com">
Aarggh. The point of the example is when we start off with a schema in which all
names are known to have global or local types: we can for these make
match="x:person/x:name"
for the local case and then
match="x:name"
for the global case.
But when someone adds a new local name, bang, it causes the fragility problem.
The new local name is matched by the global template. The fact that I can go and
add some code (whether I do so by using ifs or longer paths is irrevelent) and make
fix things up. The issue is robustness in the face of change.
I have always thought that the X in XML was extensibility: we can extend existing document types and if our processing software has been written correctly, our loosely-coupled clients will continue to work correctly. XS even gives us the nice restriction and extension mechanism to help us if we want to make sure that when we change something any processing scripts (not relying on position-from-the-
I have followed this discussion for some time. Refrained from piping in because
I do not have a clear answer to the questions posed.\. I think (not sure
yet) that I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to achieve
the robustness to extensibility that all of us desire.