Date:         Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:24:41 -0500
Reply-To:     Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Andrew E Switala <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: merits of a type library
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline

I *think* that <xsd:element form="unqualified" ...> in complex type
definitions in the type library will match your RNG examples. I'll play
around with that tonight. You're right that even one unneeded namespace
is too many, but I was addressing your assertion of increased stylesheet
complexity due to namespaces. Suppose MODS didn't use XLink, but
declared its own "href" attribute. Would a transformation from MODS,
assuming it handled href in the first place, be made any simpler by
ditching the one namespace? Stylesheet complxity is a function of the
number of elements and attributes, and of the number of modes, but I
don't see where the number of namespaces enters into it.

--Andy

>>> [log in to unmask] 01/25/05 5:44 PM >>>

Your second point isn't very convincing.  *Any* unnecessary additional
namespace it too many.  As I said in the other message, we need to
keep
these questions separate.

Bruce