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

Re: what namespace for unqualified locals?

From: Brian Atkins <brian_atkins@firehunter.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 17:04:31 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <3BC214D8.71CA2C0A@firehunter.com>
To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
See related question with subject:
   [xsl] XML Schema/XSL conflict (can't differentiate unqualified locals)?

> The same namespace that unprefixed attributes belong to :-).  That is,
> I like to say, they are _associated_ with the namespace of their
> parent, but they're not directly in it.

In the xsl-list thread, to which I also posted the above question,
"Evan Lenz" <elenz@xyzfind.com> writes:
> 
> XSLT supports namespaces as defined in the XML Namespaces recommendation.
> I'm not sure what the XML Schema wording is on unqualified local element
> types, but the word "unqualified", at least to me, suggests that XML Schema
> treats both "spam" elements as not in a namespace, and thus having the same
> universal name. At least this is how they are defined in the XML Namespaces
> recommendation.

According to the XML Namespaces recommendation, this seems like the only
interpretation.  Yet, the two 'spam' elements are clearly distinct in the
schema and in instance documents.

This seems like a can of worms waiting to get opened.  It poses a problem
for stylesheets (see ref'd thread) now, and I believe other instance
document processors may have problems in the future.

Perhaps adding local names to the namespace, in some way qualified by
the complexType in which they are embedded, is needed?

Brian Atkins

-- 
Brian Atkins          brian_atkins@firehunter.com         (970) 288-2114
Agilent Technologies     4800 Wheaton Drive        Ft. Collins, CO 80525
Received on Monday, 8 October 2001 17:19:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:24 GMT