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

local vs gloabl Scope (was: namespaces and schemaLocation )

From: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 00:21:30 +0100
Message-ID: <004701c00321$ba2c1870$0100a8c0@arbitrary>
To: "David Beech" <David.Beech@oracle.com>, <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Cc: <lcastro@cookwood.com>
David,

I was talking about local and global scope from an XML 1.0 + namespaces
perspective rather than a schema perspective. The original question was (my
paraphrase) 'when should I put all my elements in the same namespace and
when should I put sub-elements in the "" namespace?' I took this question to
be one about document design rather than schema design per se.

Again, I'm sorry if this was not clear from my message[1]. I thought
 wrongly it seems ) that as I had not mentioned schemas at all in my reply
it would be fairly obvious I was not talking about schemas in this case.

Martin Gudgin
DevelopMentor

[1] I was hoping to put an URL here but I can't find the archive for
www-xml-schema-comments. Is there one?

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Beech" <David.Beech@oracle.com>
To: <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Cc: <lcastro@cookwood.com>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 12:06 AM
Subject: Re: namespaces and schemaLocation


> Martin Gudgin wrote:
> >
> > The issue of local vs global scope ( sub elements in 'no namespace' vs
> sub
> > elements in explicit namespace ) is an interesting one.
>
> I don't believe this is the way "locally scoped" and "global" are used
> in Structures, e.g. the 3.3 component and prose description.  ("Local"
> itself tends to be used only for the "local part" of a QName, which is
> s different sense of locality, including what we would call "global"
> element names!)
>
> The scope property ("global", or a complex type definition) is
> orthogonal to the targetNamespace property - either scope may be
> combined with a namespace URI, or "absent" (no namespace).  Or
> at least that is my understanding.
>
> Maybe we need to have some schema-ig discussion and reach
> agreement before publishing more replies to schema-comments.
>
> Thanks,
>
>   David
>
>
Received on Thursday, 10 August 2000 19:26:03 UTC

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