- From: Roger L. Costello <costello@mitre.org>
- Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 15:00:59 -0500
- 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 UTC