W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > November 2004

SV: global Elem names globally unique Re: SV: Element names guide lines

From: Bryan Rasmussen <brs@itst.dk>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:12:33 +0100
Message-ID: <D45A5694803BE943BA46F9A7262BF83D12343C@its42.itst.local>
To: 'Burak Emir' <Burak.Emir@epfl.ch>
Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org


>>Instead what seems to happen with structures where xml schema is used is
>>that you get naming conventions like this
>><Car>
>><CarDescription></CarDescription>
>></Car> 

>>In fact this is the naming convention where I work.

>I find that redundant, but you seem to be aware of the problem.

>>this naming convention seems to be related to naming conventions often
used
>>in certain object oriented languages 

>Well, it is not related to the languages at all, 

I know, that is why I tried to specify that is was related to naming
conventions often used in...languages
That is to say these naming conventions are being used and hence we end up
with elements with name CarDescription. 

Of course our naming conventions are based on iso 11179. 


>You are admonishing the restriction that global element declarations 
>introduce element names.
>I agree that this is needlessly restrictive..
>*However* considering that you can simply write (introducing a local 
>element declaration)

>....<element name="description" type="FooType"/>....

>the problem seems marginal (although it complicates for instance 
>generating a schema from a bunch of class definitions).

hmm, I started going off on a tangent discussing problems I've had in
various processors were reuse of types was concerned with locally declared
elements giving errors that were wrong, e.g. not resolving namespaces were
elementFormDefault was qualified, etc. But then I realized that was not my
point, the point was that I suppose that a structure like 
<Car>
<CarDescription>
</CarDescription>
</Car>
which was one of the possible structures defined in the original email,
arise for a reason. One possible reason I can see is having Naming and
Design Rules that basically mandate that you will have to have a
CarDescription element if you want the Description of a Car to have
different restrictions on it then a normative Description. 

At any rate, as the original question was about naming and it seemed to me
that the various names proposed for the Car Description were examples of
naming strategies that I seldomly see outside of XML dialects in which XML
Schema validations seems to play a strong component, so what I would like to
figure out is why does XML Schema seem to be used with so many dialects in
which structures like 

<Car>
<CarDescription></CarDescription>
</Car>
seem to be the way things are done. 


>I would not go that far. It is rather a drawback of your naming and 
>design rules.
probably :)
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2004 13:17:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:40:23 UTC