[Nml-wg] Chameleon namespaces (was: XML syntax for NML relations)

[Freek Dijkstra]

Jason wrote:

>> Even though its a special namespace, it can be reduced to the base
>> which should make services happy.

Freek wondered:

> What do you mean with "special" namespace?

Wait, you mean a Chameleon namespace? (you referred to
http://books.xmlschemata.org/relaxng/relax-CHP-11-SECT-5.html earlier)

I explicitly to NOT make that assumption. In fact, I'm very hesitant to
use the concept of Chameleon namespaces, given the warning at the end of
this page:

> Chameleon schemas are very controversial. [...] Chameleon schemas 
> work contrary to most developers' namespace expectations, and in the
> process remove most of the value of using namespaces. For this reason
> I would recommend you be very cautious when using them!

And this comes from the prime source on the topic...

I do like the concept of subclassing, and I think we can (and should)
include that (chameleon namespaces are a special case of subclassing).
However, without proper consulting with a true XML expert, who thinks
Chameleon namespaces is really the best solution to our problem, I am
very hesitant to include that concept in NML.

Freek