Re: More namespaces perversion
Bill la Forge (b.laforge@jxml.com)
Thu, 8 Oct 1998 17:17:22 -0400
From: Ron Bourret <rbourret@dvs1.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de>
>> [Peter Murray-Rust]:
>> This looks as if it should map trivially into XSchema (Ron, Simon???)
>> XSchema comes out this week, I think - I'm not suggesting it should be
>> altered to fit this - more that this - along with help could be the first
use.
>
>This sort of information would easily fit in an XSchema file, currently
under
>the More element, although in a later version it would probably get and
element
>of its own, either for inclusion under an ElementDecl or possibly
free-floating
>under XSchema (I'll have to think about that one).
>
>However, somebody (Bill LaForge?) thought that this stuff probably
shouldn't go
>in the schema file, as it is application-specific, not schema specific.
That
>is, while you would presumably have a single schema for a given document
class,
>you would probably have multiple bindings. (Please correct me if I've
gotten
>this wrong.)
Sounds right to me. -Bill
>Of course, there's nothing to stop you from naming bindings and keeping
multiple
>different binding sets in a single schema file, but at some point I have to
>wonder why you need the schema information at all. Does an application
that
>uses element bindings also need the other schema information, such as
content
>model and attributes? It strikes me that the application generating the
>bindings is more likely to need schema information than an application
using the
>bindings.
To restate this slightly, the XSchema is needed at the time the mapping
from XML to application is defined. In the case of Coins, that is
code-generation
time. The bindings are used subsequently to connect the elements with the
generated code and the application classes.