[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: infinite depth to namespaces
- From: "Fuchs, Matthew" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "'Simon St.Laurent'" <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 11:46:20 -0700
Right. Which is why, if you're going to use local elements in a schema, you
should make them unqualified, as that works best with existing software.
See my response to Rick.
This also shows that best practices need to evolve. While "put everything
in a namespace" was reasonable best practice before the arrival of XSDL, the
concretization of a notion of "local elements" (I hesitate to call it
"formalization") - just as the Namespaces rec concretized the notion of
"global attribute", which hadn't existed syntactically before, although
people used them - can change what best practices can be. And best
practices for local elements is unqualified.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 11:22 AM
> To: Fuchs, Matthew
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: RE: infinite depth to namespaces
> On 31 Aug 2001 10:40:14 -0700, Fuchs, Matthew wrote:
> > Perhaps because there is often no single "best-practice" -
> I think I'd
> > expect you of all people to realize that. Often what is
> most important is
> > there be consistent practice - the principle of least
> surprise, or something
> > like that. Consistency is often more important than optimality.
> I think you must have a rather different understanding of "best
> practices" from mine. My understand of "best practices"
> isn't "optimal
> way to do things" but rather "how best to avoid difficulties
> within the
> context of a given specification set". In that understanding, best
> practice typically values consistency as much as (and frequently more
> than) optimality.
> Common XML , for instance, is a best practices document focused on
> consistency rather than making optimal use of XML 1.0's features.
> I had thought this usage of "best practices" was pretty ordinary in
> computing (things like IETF Best Current Practice documents),
> but maybe
> it's rarer than I'd thought.
> I'd originally written:
> > > Simple best-practice solutions are fairly easy to come up
> with, but
> > > seemingly just as easy to shoot down, suggesting that there
> > > may never be
> > > consensus on these issues.
>  - http://simonstl.com/articles/cxmlspec.txt
> Simon St.Laurent