W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > August 2004

RE: qualified local/global Re: Namespace problem

From: Michael Kay <mhk@mhk.me.uk>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 09:40:57 +0100
To: <Volker.Zink@porabo.ch>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E1BzAOT-0002kI-C4@frink.w3.org>

> You misunderstood me. To define a complex type and want 
> element A to be 
> of type X1 FROM namespace N1 and element B to be of type X2 FROM 
> namespace N2 is not questioned by me. But why somebody want 
> to define a 
> complex type to be IN namespace N1 and an element of this 
> type to be IN 
> namespace N2? (Thats the case if you define a target namespace in the 
> schema and miss the elementFormDefault)

I think one should put the question the other way around. Why should the
language disallow such a combination? Generally, a language should allow
everything that makes sense (=has well-defined semantics), it should not
disallow things merely because they don't appear to be useful.

Michael Kay
Received on Monday, 23 August 2004 08:41:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:15:10 UTC