W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > August 2002

RE: Why doesn't this instance document validate?

From: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 09:19:02 -0700
Message-ID: <8BD7226E07DDFF49AF5EF4030ACE0B7E06621FA5@red-msg-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "John Verhaeg" <jverhaeg@MetaMatrix.Com>
Cc: <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, "XML Schema Mailing List (E-mail)" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>

Of course, note that the W3C XML Schema notion of qualified (has a namespace) is different from the meaning of qualified in almost all other contexts involving XML including the Namespaces in XML recommendation where qualified means "has a prefix". 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com] 
	Sent: Fri 8/23/2002 8:51 AM 
	To: John Verhaeg 
	Cc: 'ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk'; XML Schema Mailing List (E-mail) 
	Subject: RE: Why doesn't this instance document validate?
	
	


	>> Just to clarify, the way I now understand
	>> this is that you cannot specify a default
	>> namespace in an instance document unless
	>> the root element is from a
	>> separate qualified namespace.  Is this correct?
	
	Well, this is legal:
	
	        <a xmlns="http://example.org/yourdefaultnamespace">
	                <b/>
	        </a>
	
	Both <a> and >b> are qualified (not prefixed!) by the namespace named
	http://example.org/yourdefaultnamespace.  So, defining a default on the
	root means that you cannot have the root element unqualified.   However,
	the root element may be qualified with the same (as above) or different
	namespace from the default.  I hope this helps.
	
	------------------------------------------------------------------
	Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
	IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
	One Rogers Street
	Cambridge, MA 02142
	------------------------------------------------------------------
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	John Verhaeg <jverhaeg@metamatrix.com>
	Sent by: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org
	08/23/2002 11:34 AM
	
	
	        To:     "'ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk'" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
	        cc:     "XML Schema Mailing List (E-mail)" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>, (bcc: Noah
	Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
	        Subject:        RE: Why doesn't this instance document validate?
	
	
	
	Just to clarify, the way I now understand this is that you cannot specify
	a
	default namespace in an instance document unless the root element is from
	a
	separate qualified namespace.  Is this correct?
	
	John P. A. Verhaeg
	JVerhaeg@MetaMatrix.Com
	MetaMatrix, Inc.
	11477 Olde Cabin Road Suite 400
	Creve Coeur, MO 63141
	(314) 739-3190 x150
	
	
	-----Original Message-----
	From: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk [mailto:ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk]
	Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 9:36 AM
	To: John Verhaeg
	Cc: XML Schema Mailing List (E-mail)
	Subject: Re: Why doesn't this instance document validate?
	
	
	John Verhaeg <jverhaeg@metamatrix.com> writes:
	
	> Can someone tell me why the attached instance document using the
	attached
	> schemas won't validate?  XML Spy is saying "This file is not valid:
	> Mandatory local element 'publisher' must be unqualified (i.e. outside of
	any
	> namespace), but you are using a default namespace".
	
	Exactly what it says -- you have (by default) specified that
	locally-declared elements (which 'publisher' is) must appear
	unqualified, but by using a default NS decl in your instance, you've
	caused it to appear qualified.
	
	Either use an explicit prefix on the document element only in your
	instance, or add "elementFormDefault='qualified'" to your xs:schema
	elements.
	
	This is a FAQ, sorry for the brief answer, there must be a longer one
	around somewhere . . .
	
	ht
	--
	  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of
	Edinburgh
	          W3C Fellow 1999--2002, part-time member of W3C Team
	     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
	                     Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
	                                      URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
	 [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged
	spam]
	
	
	
	
	
Received on Friday, 23 August 2002 12:19:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:34 GMT