Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > Many developers believe that rigid, conservative (everything not > permitted is forbidden) schemas are necessary to produce software. > Nothing could be further from the truth. Programming with the > expectation that the schema will be followed leads to brittle, > inextensible, closed systems that break at the first whiff of change. > Robust, flexible software that can handle extensions gracefully begins > with the realization that any fixed schema is inadequate for some uses, > and that one must be prepared to handle both schemaless and invalid > documents. > Baloney. You can simply modify the schema. That way all members of the team use the same convention, from authors to template creators to developers. We have a base schema that can be used by client projects. Or they have the option of creating their own which could include the base schema. Say there are ten authors on a team and they all can create a 'poll' content piece. The requirement is that a poll shows form fields if the end-user has not taken it and results if they have. If a schema was adhered to, templates could be written to handle this. If authors could make up their own tags then there could be ten+ ways needed to style the poll and create the necessary logic. Have you ever worked in a team environment where work needed to get done by a specific time? -Rob
|
