- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 22:20:23 -0400
- To: "Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com>
- Cc: "'Gavin Kistner'" <phrogz@mac.com>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Michael Kay writes: > For some strange reason which I've never understood, local element > declarations (i.e. <element name="x"/> within a complex type) default to > being in no namespace, rather than defaulting to the target > namespace of the > schema. How to treat this was probably the most contentious question in the design of Schema 1.0. It was the so-called issue 208 and caused so much disagreement that the number 208 became a standing joke in the group for some time. I agree with your implication that defaulting to qualified, or in fact fixing the choice at qualified, would have been sensible. Others felt that (a) attributes were a precedent, not withstanding that the Namespaces in XML Recommendation treats them asymmetrivally regarding defaulting and (b) there are/were those who felt that using the same qualified name with two different local meanings conflicts with the spirit of making the names globally unique, and through use of URI-grounded QNames, offering the promise that the elements or their names are resources on the Web. It's a long discussion that we don't want to repeat (trust me!), but the "strange reasons" were along those lines. Since the group went in circles on this and adherents to both preferences felt strongly, the switch was introduced. Noah -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Saturday, 15 March 2008 02:20:12 UTC