Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> > complexity than this). Using local types made schema design and > > maintenance much simpler than if every element name in the schema had to > > be uniquely typed. But it it also makes it harder for me to comprehend > > correctly even the relatively small (1-2Kb) messages that we typcially > > deal with. > > Maybe you do not use attributes, but if you do, do you have problems > comprehending them because typically they are not in a namespace? Why are > local element types different? > I do use attributes - the difference is simply complexity. An attribute's type is determined by its context, which is always its parent. Local elements can be layered all the way up to a single global root element. If you have n layers of local elements above an element whose type you are tying to determine, you have n possible determining contexts, of which n-1 are themselves of indeterminate type. In other words attributes are self-evident, but local elements require either schema-aware tools, schema coding standards or possibly both. Francis.
|
