- From: Antti Sissonen <antti_sissonen@hotmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 13:45:08 +0200
- To: mike@saxonica.com, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
What I meant was not having namespace prefixes in the instance document since in this particular case the xml instance presents business content and the element naming should be exact. So if I am using a common element coming from a common component schema it should look like this: <Schema> <Aggregate> <MaterialBatchIdentifier> ... instead of: <Schema> <Aggregate> <common:MaterialBatchIdentifier> Does that help? I've understood that I can get rid of prefixes by using the correct design (venetian blind) and the default namespace definition (xmlns="foo", not xmlns:foo="foo") if only one namespace is declared for the instance. But then if I'd like to have a separate namespace for the common components I run out of options. Thus, I've concluded that maybe I just have to have common component schema in no namespace and use include to have it available (chameleon). If the idea of the schema architecture is to assure that the same name will not be used for different things the chameleon design would support/force it. What is it that I'd lose if I switch from import to include? Rgrds, Antti > > > I have a schema that imports another one. I'm trying to keep > > the namespace > > prefixes hidden in the xml instance > >Sorry, I've no idea what you mean. What does a "hidden prefix" look like? > >Michael Kay >http://www.saxonica.com/ > >
Received on Wednesday, 4 January 2006 11:45:21 UTC