W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > June 2001

Re: Mixing schemaLocation and noNamespaceSchemaLocation?

From: Francis Norton <francis@redrice.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 23:18:26 +0100
Message-ID: <3B1FFDB2.F74B5111@redrice.com>
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
CC: Ian Stokes-Rees <ijs@decisionsoft.com>, "Arnold, Curt" <Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com>, "'xmlschema-dev@w3.org'" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>

"Henry S. Thompson" wrote:
> Ian Stokes-Rees <ijs@decisionsoft.com> writes:
> >
> > I have been reflecting on this comment with respect to the
> > "form" attribute.  Is it true that anything with
> > form="unqualified" (whether from an explicit form attribute or
> > inherrited from the xxxxxFormDefault attribute on the schema element) is
> > being defined into the null namespace rather than into the target
> > namespace of the schema?
> I wouldn't say so, any more than ordinary attributes are 'defined into
> the null namespace'.  Just as attributes are, local element
> definitions are associated with their parent's namespace, indirectly.
I would say that they are *directly* associated with the null namespace,
if only because that's how XSLT and XPath treat them. The XML Namespace
rec doesn't say anything about unqualified attributes *not* being in the
null namespace. As far as I can see, the only special treatment given to
attributes (other than namespace declarations) rather than elements is
that section 5.2 says default namespace qualifications don't apply
directly to attributes. They may apply *indirectly* as far as their
containing element is in a namespace, but they're still directly in the
null namespace as far as I, XPath or XSLT can see. 

But I still find the namespace rec pretty confusing, so if anyone can
come up with a different interpretation I'd like to hear it.

Received on Thursday, 7 June 2001 18:18:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:55:52 UTC