Global seems to me
> to tie in very much with type
> oriented schemas
Actually, most arguments for local are centered around managing by types
rather than types and elements.
>and that in turn ties in with polymorhism (which
> requires the global elements as well
> as the global types).
I assume you mean named types since there are no such thing as global
types.
>In other words
> it seems to me that the industry,
> where advocating global schemas
> (increasingly so, it seems) does
> seem to do so with features such
> as inheritance / polymorphic
> treatment of types strongly in mind,
I would be interested in any research related to polymorphic treatment
of types other than Arofan's paper since my google can't seem to find
any.
> along with the growing tool and
> other standard support (XSLT 2, etc).
Once again, just because a tool supports a feature, that is not a
justifiable reason for using the feature. Else we will just use <any>
and allow customizers free reign.
Mark
