- From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:31:52 +0100
- To: "'Nanda Kol'" <nandakol@hotmail.com>, <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Received on Monday, 20 August 2007 12:32:06 UTC
> Please, don't misunderstand my question; it is absolutely not my intention to suggest changes to the XML spec, rather my aim is to to find out what is the rationale for the difference between elements and attributes with regard to the default namespace. The rationale, I think, is that attributes normally have meanings and definitions that are local to the element in which they appear; when that is the case, putting them in a namespace serves no useful purpose. Of course it's also sometimes true that child elements have meanings and definitions that are local to the parent element in which they appear; and I think that's why the XML Schema spec allows the option elementFormDefault="unqualified". In practice though I think this option is rarely used and certainly is rarely recommended. The most common practice is to put child elements in the same namespace as their parents. One could argue this is inconsistent - but if there were no differences between elements and attributes then there would be no point in XML providing both. Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/
Received on Monday, 20 August 2007 12:32:06 UTC