W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > October 2006

Re: reference to element, elementFormDefault unqualified

From: Xan Gregg <xan.gregg@jmp.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:22:19 -0400
Message-Id: <5C80C352-FE2F-4D14-8037-CC1850963120@jmp.com>
Cc: Leo Antoli <Leo.Antoli@Misys.com>
To: XMLSchema-Dev <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>

On Oct 17, 2006, at 10:11 AM, Antoli, Leo wrote:

> Have you used or you know of some public schema which uses
> elementFormDefault="unqualified" ?
>
> Are there good reasons to use it? Are there good reasons to avoid it?

I think there is a technical reason for using uqualified locals: it  
makes allows derivation by restriction by types in other namespaces.

The difficulty is that derivation by restriction (unlike extension)  
requires one to repeat the original type definition contents. If the  
derivation is in another namespace, then the locals cannot be defined  
in the original namespace.

xan
Received on Wednesday, 18 October 2006 14:23:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:55 GMT