- From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com>
- Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 08:03:48 +0100
- To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Robert Braddock wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 11:54:28PM +0100, Eric van der Vlist wrote: > > IMHO, since namespaces are aimed to disambiguate element names, ns1:elt > > and ns2:elt should be considered as having a different semantic... > > I agree. > > > And if you import the definitions using unqualified types, you hide this > > since you get similar element names from different namespaces that are > > expected to have the same meaning ! > > I disagree :). While the tags don't carry the namespaces on them, they still > are from that namespace, and any processing that needs to care about > meanings will know that. (It could mechanically find out from the schema, if > necessary.) > Then you accept to be to be locked with W3C XML Schema and it's a still deeper difference of perspective :) ... <rant> <disclaimer>W3C XML Schema is great</disclaimer>, but I tend to see it (and any schema language) as an add-on spec that can help to validate documents and build application when you seem to see it as a one the basis of your architecture. Seeing W3C XML Schema as an "add-on" I'd be as reluctant to lock the XML applications I am developing as I would be to tie them to a specific programming language or operating system. I believe that XML would loose a lot from being locked with any schema language. These schemata are complex technologies and AFAIK none of the current ones can describe all the possible XML vocabularies and this would lead to restricting the scope of possibilities. Furthermore, they are adding complexity to the parsing as well and are probably not a good fit for applications to be run on smaller appliances. <conclusion>For all these reasons, I'd be very reluctant to build any application based on the infoset modified by a schema language...</conclusion> </rant> That's probably a very personal view, though. Eric > > Wouldn't it be simpler to use a single namespace then ? > > Then you have name collision issues instead of nice encapsulation. > > Granted that there is a rather serious disadvantage in going without global > elements, since there are schema features that require global elements :( > Having unqualified documents be incompatible with those features seems not > quite right to me though. ? > > Robert Braddock -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric van der Vlist Dyomedea http://dyomedea.com http://xmlfr.org http://4xt.org http://ducotede.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Saturday, 13 January 2001 02:01:37 UTC