W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: XSDL best practices question/suggestions

From: Roger L. Costello <costello@mitre.org>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 15:00:59 -0500
Message-ID: <3A844C7B.F09D4F69@mitre.org>
To: "Fuchs, Matthew" <matthew.fuchs@commerceone.com>
CC: "'www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org'" <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>, costello@mitre.org
Hi Matthew,

[Sorry for the delay.  Been on travel. I don't seem to be subscribed to
this list group, so I don't know if there were any responses to your
post. (How do I subscribe?)]

Here are my comments:

> > Therefore I recommend you structure your schema(s) as a tree,
> > with a root file containing only includes and no definitions,
> > and the other files containing imports and definitions, but no
> > includes. This way, your only file system dependency is in the 
> > root file ...

Hmm, I don't quite see this. Both the <include> element as well as the
<import> element reference a (schema) file.  For example:

<include schemaLocation="URI to a schema file"/>

<import namespace="namespace of schema"
        schemaLocation="URI to a schema file"/>

With both elements a file is referenced.  Thus, if you change the name
of a schema file it will impact all schemas that reference it,
regardless of whether it is being referenced using <include> or
<import>.  Thus, I don't see how using <include> minimizes file
dependencies any more than <import> does.  Perhaps I am not
understanding your point?  /Roger
Received on Friday, 9 February 2001 15:01:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:12:49 GMT