Re: qualified local/global Re: Namespace problem

What i does not understand is why there is the need of defining one 
element of a complex type to be in namespace A and another element or 
attribute in namespace B. As i use namespaces in my programming 
environment it makes no sense to put part of an object in a different 
namespace as another. So i think a complex type as a whole (all local 
elements and attributes) should be in one namespace too (it may be 
important to get the types from differnt namespaces, but thats a 
different thing). Can someone explain me why the expressive power to put 
parts of a complex type in a different namespace as the complex type 
itself is needed?

[For me XML-schema is a way to define lightweight objects. I am a 
programmer, so this should be nothing astonishing :-) So i wonder why 
certain apects of objects are much easier in my programming environment 
than the corresponding aspect in XML schema, or are missing in XML 
schema (why is there no namespace hierarchy?).]

Volker


Michael Kay schrieb:

>>My confusion is all due to my belief that namespace prefixes 
>>would never 
>>play a role in attribute *values*, which is obviously wrong 
>>for XSDs. I, 
>>for one, would appreciate an XSD syntax that makes these things more 
>>straightforward (=does not use xmlns attributes).
>>    
>>
>
>
>I have suggested before, and suggest again, that any specification that
>allows the use of namespace prefixes in attribute content (for example XML
>Schema and XSLT/XPath) should provide an alternative syntax that uses the
>namespace URI in place of the prefix, thus at least giving users the option
>of creating documents that have no hidden dependencies on namespace
>prefixes.
>
>Michael Kay
>
>
>
>  
>