Message text written by James Clark
>
Is this a capability we need for RELAX 1.0?
James
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
James,
From a business point of view I would say 'No'!
This sleight of hand stuff - poof its magic - scares me.
I really want to know that the business definition is singular
and consistent.
If I want something different - then I should version it, and
explicitly make it clear or use a sub-named item and
extend the base structure.
The fact that an include of an include of an include can
change something is in my book a BUG!
I know C++ and Java programmers love this stuff - its
called job security - finding where and why something
changed. This is officially blessed as 'good' of course
in OO being able to redefine someone elses data
constructs.
Thanks, DW.
p.s. Interesting point on XML 1.0 ATTLIST. I suspect
most XML tools treat this as a bug and throw an error! ; -)
