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

Re: namespaces and schemaLocation

From: Liz Castro <lcastro@cookwood.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 11:27:59 -0400
Message-ID: <3992C9FF.C46A90D@cookwood.com>
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
> [MJG]
> 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.

Yes, I think that is what's messing me up. Is there anything more to being in
"no namespace" that simply not being in it? The bit under section 6.1 in Data
Structures just says a component can be "associated directly or indirectly with
a target namespace, or explicitly with no namespace", but it doesn't give any
details about what that really means.

I think I see why you need that p now in your version of simple:xsd. Otherwise,
the contents element is understood to be part of the default namespace, and it
shouldn't be. Is that right?

> 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:

And I don't think I understand yet the advantages or disadvantages of having
all the elements in an instance in the same namespace or not (the only
advantage I see is that you could have a default namespace and then have to
type less prefixes). Mostly I want to understand how to make it one way or
another so that when I do understand _why_ I'd want to do it, I'll be able to
do it.

Thanks,
Liz

Liz Castro
Cookwood Press
http://www.cookwood.com
Received on Thursday, 10 August 2000 11:21:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:12:47 GMT