RE: Why doesn't this instance document validate?

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 UTC