- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 17:09:18 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Dan Connolly writes: >> I think the general principle of "keep the simple things simple" applies. Are we perhaps seeing the following two desiderata somewhat in opposition? * To XML schema, all types have equal standing, regardless of the namespace in which their names appear, namespaces of the base types from which they draw information, number of schema documents used to compose them, etc. From this point of view, there is architectural simplicity in having an identification mechanism that models that orthogonality. * Dan believes that for his users, the types they locally create are distinguished, if only by the likelihood that users will wish to refer to them. Thus, for these users, the "simple case to keep simple" is to optimize for bare name reference to such user defined types, perhaps at the expense of a more orthogonal identification architecture for components in general. I am neither defending nor criticizing the choices embodied in the current proposal from the schema workgroup, just suggesting that the above may be the trade-off. Maybe we can get lucky and find a way to scale from using barenames to achieve the second goal, while retaining a more robust architecture to handle the general case. Noah -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 1 April 2005 22:09:31 UTC