W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > July 2002

Re: Unqualified type

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 18:30:55 -0400
To: Brenda Bell <bbell@juicesoftware.com>
Cc: "Xmlschema-Dev@W3. Org (E-mail)" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF3A579A29.A763574D-ON85256C02.007B1232@lotus.com>



establishes a default namepace, so the types you ask about are indeed 
qualified.  (The correct terminology is that they are not prefixed, but 
they are qualified -- I.e. due to the default.)

Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

Brenda Bell <bbell@juicesoftware.com>
Sent by: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org
07/26/2002 06:20 PM

        To:     "Xmlschema-Dev@W3. Org (E-mail)" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        Unqualified type

I've encountered a schema that looks like this: 
    <schema xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" 
      <complexType name="coordinates"> 
          <element name="x" type="double"/> 
          <element name="y" type="double"/> 
The object of my confusion are the x and y elements whose types are not 
fully qualified.  According to the examples in Vlist's book, this is 
legal... my question is how it should be interpreted.  Is an unqualified 
type assumed to be a type in the target namespace (which I believe would 
make this schema illegal) or in the default namespace (I think that's the 
proper term for it :)
Brenda Bell 
Sr. Software Architect 
Juice Software, Inc. 
Phone: 603.428.3994 
Cell:  603.494.8206 
Fax:   603.428.8713 
Email: bbell@juicesoftware.com 
MSN:   bbell@theotherbell.com 
Received on Friday, 26 July 2002 18:32:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:15:04 UTC