Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Fuchs, Matthew wrote: > Right. Which is why, if you're going to use local elements in a schema, you > should make them unqualified, as that works best with existing software. > See my response to Rick. I don't buy this argument for a second. Existing software deals with unqualified and qualified elements in a similar fashion. > > This also shows that best practices need to evolve. While "put everything > in a namespace" was reasonable best practice before the arrival of XSDL, the > concretization of a notion of "local elements" (I hesitate to call it > "formalization") - just as the Namespaces rec concretized the notion of > "global attribute", which hadn't existed syntactically before, although > people used them - can change what best practices can be. And best > practices for local elements is unqualified. Best practice is to minimize the number of namespaces within a piece of XML. Related elements, call them what you will, are best placed in the same namespace. You are needlessly making things more complicated than they need be. Jonathan
|
