Re: Mixing schemaLocation and noNamespaceSchemaLocation?

Ian Stokes-Rees <> writes:

> > > Assertion #4: One schema document may define a subset of at most one
> > > namespace. (that subset may be the entire namespace, or may be no
> > > namespace, in the case of "null namespace" schema documents).
> > 
> > Yes, although your choice of words is odd.  A schema only addresses
> > the syntax of elements and attributes in a namespace, there are lots
> > of other things that might be defined about a namespace.
> I have been reflecting on this comment with respect to the
> "form" attribute.  Is it true that anything with
> form="unqualified" (whether from an explicit form attribute or
> inherrited from the xxxxxFormDefault attribute on the schema element) is
> being defined into the null namespace rather than into the target
> namespace of the schema?

I wouldn't say so, any more than ordinary attributes are 'defined into 
the null namespace'.  Just as attributes are, local element
definitions are associated with their parent's namespace, indirectly.

> If this is the case, then is it correct to say that a single schema
> document may define elements and attributes into the null namespace, the
> target namespace of the schema document, or both?

I wouldn't.

> Finally, for globally declared elements and attributes there is no concept
> of "form" since they can only be defined into the target namespace,
> although that target namespace may be the null namespace.  Similarly,
> globally declared types and groups can only ever be defined into the
> target namespace.


  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
          W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail:

Received on Thursday, 7 June 2001 07:54:43 UTC