Re: Schema, Namespace, DTD

Tom,

Thanks for your comments.

The XML Schema WG accepted the Namespaces REC as a given, and has
tried to offer various ways of using it for convenience in
different use cases.

Since you mention the analogy with Java packages, you may possibly
find it helpful to glance at approach 1A) and the corresponding
example in a reply to an earlier xml schema comment:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2000JulSep/0084.html

A couple of typos are corrected in

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2000JulSep/0085.html

This approach of using a namespace qualifier on the root element,
and therafter using unqualified local names, corresponds quite 
closely to having a package name qualifier at the top level, and 
therafter using local field names when navigating Java structures,
even where those fields are in classes defined in other packages.

I hope this suggests a simple and useful subset of the functionality
for your purposes.

  David

Tom Cartner wrote:
> 
> The confusion that the schema, namespaces and dtds are causing are
> symptomatic of a bad design.  Although language neutral, the namespace is
> basically a java package.  Yet the syntax, documentation and examples are
> horrible.  I have found no clear, useful explanation of how to use these
> things.  By standardizing on them we are stuck with them for years.  XML did
> have promise, seems to have fallen short.
> 
> Tom Cartner