W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: Comments on Part 0: Primer

From: Curt Arnold <carnold@houston.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 09:39:09 -0500
Message-ID: <001201bfb50d$578b1c00$9344a018@houston.rr.com>
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
HST wrote:

> That's precisely what you _can_ do.  Write the schema with no
> targetNS, it can be used as is for no-namespace documents, and
> included into schemas _with_ a targetNS and thereby appropriated for
> use with that target.
Primer Section 4.1 said:

The one import caveat to using the include is that the target namespace of
the included constructions must be the same as the target namespace of the
including schema...   Maybe this is imprecise and Section 1 allows the
included target namespace to be blank.

However, even if you could use the include to acheive reuse, it is still a
bad thing to have to publish two near-identical schemas, one for use in XML
1.0 sans Namespace usage and one for namespace aware usage.  This is really
a distinction in usage and should be addressed in the binding of a schema
with a document and not in the schema itself.

For example, you would have to have two schemas for XHTML.  Both would
truely be using names within the context of the http://www.w3.org/1999/XHTML
(whatever the true namespace is), but one would be for XML 1.0 compatible
documents and one for XML 1.0+namespaces.  This is just not good.

However, simply moving the statement of which namespace to match with
unnamespace qualified elements to the binding of the document and schema
allows you to use one schema for both XML 1.0 and XML+Namespaces usages.
Received on Wednesday, 3 May 2000 10:49:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:08:47 UTC