- From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 10:08:24 -0700
- To: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
On Mar 10, 2011, at 8:38 AM, Henry S. Thompson wrote: > [Still working on clearing away the underbrush to try to get at the > underlying principles] > > ... > So, a thought experiment. Instead of converting includes into > overrides, why not start by _eliminating_ includes, thereby reducing > the complexity of the situation we have to get our heads around, and > exploiting our existing understanding of how to manage re-entrancy and > circularity in the include graph? The most obvious initial reason is that include is defined on the component level, not the schema document level. Are you proposing that we change it to operate on the schema-document level? What do we do about processors which use includes to incorporate components stored in other forms? -- **************************************************************** * C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Black Mesa Technologies LLC * http://www.blackmesatech.com * http://cmsmcq.com/mib * http://balisage.net ****************************************************************
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 17:08:54 UTC