Eve Maler wrote:
>Naming patterns:
>(would go in Section 5.2.1.1 somewhere)
>
>Some schemas use suffixes to indicate the sort of thing being named, such
>as AssertionType and IDSimpleType; this is something to consider.
...
>
>My recommendation: I'm not thrilled about the verbosity that "Type" adds,
>but it can be marginally useful when you're reading a schema, just because
>you can't get confused about what sort of thing (or what sort of
>thing-reference) you're looking at. I say we use it. We don't really need
>a "SimpleType" variant, but for consistency, we should probably use "Group"
>as a suffix (if we have any groups) too.
I'll take the other side on this one. My recommendation:
elements/attributes are named in a different universe from types
(simple/complex) -- didn't want to use the term "namespace" there... whew!
See section 2.2.3 Naming Conflicts in the Schema Primer
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#NamingConflicts If you need to name some
type the same as some element you may do so without resort to "name
mangling" (like xxxType). Also, the context should be sufficient to
determine whether what you're reading is an element name or a type name, so
you shouldn't need help there.
