Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Yes, I put that *very* badly. The problem is more that the stuff comes into our namespace, and we don't know what is there. But that is what I am trying to do. What you suggest is what I *really* want - only bring in those definitions that I use. Sounds like some XSLT pre-processing, but that is also less than perfect. I want to put some time into thinking about this. In particular, what we can do with elementFormDefault="unqualified". I will certainly keep you up to date on my thoughts. -----Original Message----- From: Roger L. Costello [mailto:costello@m...] Sent: 08 November 2000 12:43 To: xml-dev@l... Subject: Re: XML Schemas: Best Practices - Chameleon design Paul Spencer wrote: > > But as long as we have an <include> rather than an <import> > we run the risk of getting too much rubbish that we don't want. Paul, I don't understand this statement. Let's compare the <include> element versus the <import> element: <include>: This element enables a schema to reuse components that are in another schema, provided the other schema has the same targetNamespace, or, has no targetNamespace. Example. <include schemaLocation="BookCatalogue.xsd"/> <import>: This element enables a schema to reuse components that are in another schema, provided the other schema has a different targetNamespace. Example. <import namespace="http://www.example.com" schemaLocation="Example.xsd"/> Both elements bring in *all* the components of the schema being referenced. ...
|
