W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > July to September 2000

Re: namespaces and schemaLocation

From: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 11:11:05 +0100
Message-ID: <004901c002b3$4ef27d10$0100a8c0@arbitrary>
To: <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Liz Castro" <lcastro@cookwood.com>
To: <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 2:36 AM
Subject: Re: namespaces and schemaLocation

> > Re: namespaces and schemaLocation
> >
> > From: Martin Gudgin (marting@develop.com)
> > Date: Wed, Aug 09 2000
> >
> > There are two problems. The main one is that your 'contents' element is
> > unqualified in the schema ( in 'no namespace' ) and qualified in the
> > instance ( in the
> > http://www.cookwood.com/ns/content namespace ).
> >
> > You can modify this by setting from='qualified' on the local element
> > declaration. Or you can modify it for an entire schema by specifying
> > elementFormDefault='qualified' on the schema element.
> I guess there's something else I'm not getting. In your new schema, you
declared the "tns"
> prefix but never used it. I thought if you declared a namespace with
xmlns="url" then that
> namespace was the default. But you're saying that my content declaration
was in "no namespace"
> (and not in the default namespace as I intended). How can that be? And how
can it be solved by
> declaring a namespace with a prefix but never using that prefix?


Sorry, the tns prefix is a habit of mine. Whenever I write a schema I always
put in an xmlns:tns and then the targetNamespace attribute ( tns stands for
target name space ). You're right that I don't use it in the example and
therefore it could be removed.

Back to the way XSD works; it is the value of the targetNamespace attribute
that determines which namespace top level schema components are in ( named
types, global element decls, global attribute decls etc ). Namespace
declarations ( xmlns= xmlns:pre= etc ) have no effect on which namespace the
schema components belong to. They just allow us to refer to the schema
components. For example if I had a named type 'foo' in the namespace
'http://example.org/something' and I wanted to provide a global element
declaration I need someway of refering to foo in that namespace:

<schema xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema'
        targetNamespace='http://example.org/something' >

  <complexType name='foo'>
    <element name='bar' type='string' />

  <element name='baz' type='tns:foo' />


Note that in the above schema both 'foo' and 'baz' are in the
http://example.org/something namespace while 'bar' is in no namespace
because all local element and attribute decls are, by default, in no

The schema below is equivalent, but I *never* write schemas this way. I
pretty much always map the default namespace to

<xsd:schema xmlns:xsd='http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema'
        targetNamespace='http://example.org/something' >

  <xsd:complexType name='foo'>
    <xsd:element name='bar' type='xsd:string' />

  <xsd:element name='baz' type='foo' />


> In the XML document, it looks like you again add a prefix ("p" this time)
and use it only for
> test, not for content. Aren't test and contents part of the same
namespace? And if not, how did
> that happen. Certainly, my intention was to create one particular
namespace with both elements
> in it, and then to use those elements in an instance.

No, they are in different namespaces as defined by your schema because, as I
said in the previous mail, by default local element ( and attribute )
declarations are in no namespace. You can change this by putting
form='qualified' on the element declaration or by putting
elementFormDefault='qualified' on xsd:schema. The former just puts that
element into the target namespace while the latter puts all local element
decls into the target namespace ( assuming its not overridden by
form='unqualified' on a local element decl! )

> I have the feeling I'm going about this the wrong way. I have been reading
and rereading those
> specs, but I find them very hard to decipher. I hope these aren't terribly
stupid questions! And
> thanks so much for helping me through them.

I think the only thing that is tripping you up is the fact that by default
local element declarations are in no namespace rather than in the target
namespace. I would suggest that if in the general case you want all the
elements in an instance to be in the same namespace then you put
elementFormDefault='qualified' on your xsd:schema element:

<schema xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema'
        elementFormDefault='qualified' >

  <complexType name='foo'>
    <element name='bar' type='string' />

  <element name='baz' type='tns:foo' />


With the above schema foo, bar and baz are all in the target namespace.

> >
> >
> > The second problem is that it is illegal to have declarations for
> > in the http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema-instance namespace.
> Also curious. Those were added automatically by XML Spy and I thought that
they were necessary
> (and legal).

That's an error on XML Spy's part. The relevant part of the spec is under
Constraint on Schemas: xsi: not allowed in[1]


Martin Gudgin

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#coss-attribute
Received on Thursday, 10 August 2000 06:12:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:53 UTC