Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Ronald Bourret wrote: > > "Fuchs, Matthew" wrote: > > > Please also note that locally scoped > > elements are _not_ just elements whose declarations occur in a funny > > location in a schema. They actually _are_ a different beast from global > > elements and _must_ be treated as such. I don't think that the W3C Schema > > WG ever really came to grip with this fact, given the inadequate support > > provided for them by spec's component model. > > I think this pretty much sums up the objections to local elements -- > they are a different beast. They don't play well with namespaces and > they certainly break one of my fundamental assumptions about XML -- what if the element's _definition_ tells you "what" a piece of data is? this was easy to avoid in a pre-namespaces world. it was harder to avoid in a post-namespaces world, but people did it any way. it is impossible to avoid in a psvi-world. in the psvi-world the namespace of the name and the environment in which the name is resolved to a definition are simply not the same thing. > namely that an element's name at least tells you what a piece of data is > (even if you do need context to determine who that data belongs to). > This reduces data portability, although the more I think about it, > complete data portability probably doesn't occur often at the individual > element level anyway. > given schemas, there's just a different way to locate the definitions. > ... > What I can't decide is whether the complexities local element types add > are worth the benefits they add to serializing object graphs. Put > another way, I can probably explain element types (as opposed to just > elements) to my Mom. I don't think I can explain local element types. in the context of the megabyte of stipulations entailed by xml schema, context-dependant name->declaration resolution would appear to be a minor issue. ...
|
