• From: Richard Lanyon <rgl@d...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:29:44 +0000 (GMT)

Mike Ripley wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2000, Roger L. Costello wrote:

> >So, not only can the Chameleon components incorporate into many
> >different namespaces, but also, they can have multiple different
> >semantics, i.e., different semantics in each schema they are used
> >within.

> I think allowing different semantics in each schema subverts the
> real reason why you would create Chameleon components to begin
> with - reuse.

I think, though, that it is entirely valid to regard Chameleon
components as re-using syntax rather than re-using semantics. As long
as everyone (and by "everyone", I mean the schema authors rather than
the instance authors) realises that this is what we are doing, there
shouldn't be a problem. Should there?

-- 
Richard Lanyon (Software Engineer) |     "The medium is the message"
XML Script development,            |             - Marshall McLuhan
DecisionSoft Ltd.                  |

• References:
  • Re: XML Schemas: Best Practices
    • From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Subsetting/ Canonical Parsers/ XML Compliance/ etc.
• Next by Date: RE: Subsetting/ Canonical Parsers/ XML Compliance/ etc.
• Previous by thread: Re: XML Schemas: Best Practices
• Next by thread: Re: XML Schemas: Best Practices
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread