Good point. But then that can be said without reference to benefits
for any particular other technology.
Cheers,
Bryan Rasmussen
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Michael Kay <> wrote:
> > Anyway I think my main objection is I don't want to see best
> > practices in a technology based on making it work best with
> > some other technology, unless it is a more targeted best
> > practice for that exact purpose. This of course is different
> > than noting what parts of a particular technology make it a
> > poor fit for working with others.
>
> I think there's a different way of looking at this. If you want to use a
> schema only for validation, then it doesn't matter if many of the constructs
> within it are unnamed. If you want to use the schema as a repository of type
> definitions accessible throughout the system, then it's a good idea to give
> more of the components global names so that they can be referenced from
> outside. That's not so much about bending your schema to fit some other
> technology, it's about maximising its value as a reusable asset.
>
> Michael Kay
> http://www.saxonica.com/
>
>
