- From: Neil Bradley <Neil.Bradley@rubus.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 14:00:22 +0100
- To: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
This answer to my question below appears to rule-out the possibility that <unprefixed> could be defined as a local element child of the <fragment> element that is required to not include the prefix. Neil. -----Original Message----- From: Jeni Tennison [mailto:jeni@jenitennison.com] Sent: 19 May 2003 13:53 To: Neil Bradley Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org Subject: Re: Differentiate between unprefixed local element and global unprefixed element Hi Neil, > The issue has been discussed before, but without a satisfactory > answer. > > <doc xmlns="DOC_NAMESPACE"> > <X:fragment xmlns:X="FRAGMENT_NAMESPACE"> > <unprefixed>???</unprefixed> > </X:fragment> > </doc> > > How does an XML Schema processor attempt to validate the > <unprefixed> element, as: > 1) a possible local element to the <fragment> element? > 2) a possible global element belonging to the default namespace? > 3) both (but if so, in what order)? Since the <unprefixed> element does not have a prefix, it is in the default namespace. The default namespace that is in-scope at the <unprefixed> element is the DOC_NAMESPACE. Therefore the schema validator should validate the <unprefixed> element against the element declaration for the {DOC_NAMESPACE}unprefixed element, which will be a top-level (global) declaration. Cheers, Jeni --- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com/
Received on Monday, 19 May 2003 08:59:13 UTC