[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> Many developers believe that rigid, conservative (everything not
> permitted is forbidden) schemas are necessary to produce software.
> Nothing could be further from the truth. Programming with the
> expectation that the schema will be followed leads to brittle,
> inextensible, closed systems that break at the first whiff of change.
> Robust, flexible software that can handle extensions gracefully begins
> with the realization that any fixed schema is inadequate for some uses,
> and that one must be prepared to handle both schemaless and invalid
> documents.
>
Baloney. You can simply modify the schema. That way all members of the
team use the same convention, from authors to template creators to
developers.
We have a base schema that can be used by client projects. Or they have
the option of creating their own which could include the base schema.
Say there are ten authors on a team and they all can create a 'poll'
content piece. The requirement is that a poll shows form fields if the
end-user has not taken it and results if they have. If a schema was
adhered to, templates could be written to handle this. If authors could
make up their own tags then there could be ten+ ways needed to style the
poll and create the necessary logic.
Have you ever worked in a team environment where work needed to get done
by a specific time?
-Rob
|
