[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: infinite depth to namespaces
- From: "Fuchs, Matthew" <email@example.com>
- To: "'Arnold, Curt'" <Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com>,"'firstname.lastname@example.org'" <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 13:12:48 -0700
Which was a use case Rick brought up. While retaining the right to dissent
at a later time - i.e., I haven't thought about it enough - this sounds
reasonable enough. It certainly falls into the notion of validation being
the addition of constraints to WF.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arnold, Curt [mailto:Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 11:58 AM
> To: 'firstname.lastname@example.org'
> Subject: RE: infinite depth to namespaces
> > 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.
> I think it depends whether the element is defined locally to
> enforce a context specific constraint or if the element is
> defined locally since it has no meaning (or possibly
> ambiguous meaning) outside
> of its context.
> If, for example, I want to constrain a person element so that
> it must have at least one child if it appears a <parents>
> element but the element can appear outside of that outside of
> that context
> without that constraint, I would suggest the best way to
> encode that constraint within the current capabilities of XML
> schema would be to declare a namespace qualified global
> element without the
> constraint and a local namespace qualified element with the
> constraint in the appropriate context.
> If <person> has the same meaning and general structure in all
> uses in a schema but only differs due to constraints due to
> context, the it is better to have them all qualified so that
> XSLT and other
> technologies can recognize them as the same concept, instead
> of totally unrelated concepts.
> > 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.
> > Matthew
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>