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? /RogerReceived on Friday, 9 February 2001 15:01:46 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 October 2007 06:13:20 GMT