- From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:10:13 +0100
- To: "Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com>
- Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
On 4/23/07, Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> wrote: > > The keys points here are: > > > > - there are two namespaces > > - each namespace contains elements in the other namespace > > > > In order to model this I created two schema documents ns1.xsd > > and ns2.xsd which import each other: > > Correct. Great - surprising little on the web for handling XML with multiple namespaces (where I looked anyway...) > > I'd like any comments on this approach - its seems strange to > > have circular imports > > Think Java "import" rather than XSLT "import". It's not at all strange in > Java for two modules to import each other. In XSD, import means "this module > references components defined in that module". Ahh ok. Would there be three instances then: A -> B -> A (two instances of A, so no circular definition) ? > , and when referencing the simpleType > > and the group prefixes are needed - unless as Mike says I add > > a default namespace, which I think would make the top of the > > schema document: > > > > targetNamespace="firstNamespace" > > xmlns:ns1="firstNamespace" > > xmlns="firstNamespace" > > > > ...which is fine but a little non-intuitive at the moment - > > is there a preferred approach? > > One sees different coding styles, but it's certainly not unusual to see > schema documents that are just like this: the targetNamespace is bound both > to an explicit prefix and to the default namespace. Personally I tend to use > the prefix, it helps to remind the reader what's going on and makes it > easier to cut-and-paste across schema documents. Me too. You do get a good sense of achievement as the complexities of XML Schema start to unravel...
Received on Monday, 23 April 2007 16:10:19 UTC