SV: no targetNamespace, elementFormDefault qualified

Hmm, "" as an URI fragment would come out to be what? A same-document
reference? I guess what is being said then with an empty namespace is that
the namespace of the document is the document itself. The meaning of the
resource is contained within the resource, a hermetic namespace. 

Despite Hermeticism being deprecated I still find it a useful, or at least
interesting, concept.  

Cheers,
Bryan Rasmussen

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Jeff Rafter [mailto:lists@jeffrafter.com]
Sendt: 3. april 2006 20:12
Til: Bryan Rasmussen
Cc: Michael Kay; xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Emne: Re: SV: no targetNamespace, elementFormDefault qualified


I think that (at least according to the NS rec) it is a real URI, but it 
is explicitly disallowed. What I mean by disallowed I don't know-- I 
don't remember if it is a conformance requirement or not.

errata NE09 http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-names-19990114-errata#NE09

Cheers,
Jeff Rafter

Bryan Rasmussen wrote:
> Well, it's also problematic because as an empty string it's not a real URI
is
> it, not even a relative URI. Oh well, it's not my schema, so I probably
> shouldn't worry. :)
> 
> Cheers,
> Bryan Rasmussen
> 
> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra: Michael Kay [mailto:mike@saxonica.com]
> Sendt: 3. april 2006 14:35
> Til: Bryan Rasmussen; xmlschema-dev@w3.org
> Emne: RE: no targetNamespace, elementFormDefault qualified
> 
> 
> 
>>Should there be an
>>xmlns:blank="" perhaps to actively qualify the non-namespace qualified
>>elements? 
> 
> 
> I've always thought it should be possible to assign a prefix to the
> non-namespace, but XML 1.1 instead decided to use the above syntax for a
> "namespace undeclaration": it causes the prefix "blank" to go out of scope
> entirely, so it can't be used for anything.
> 
> Michael Kay
> http://www.saxonica.com/
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 4 April 2006 08:41:05 UTC