Re: Unqualified elment - but still have prefix at the root

If you omit the target namespace, you are giving up using namespaces,
which are used to help avoid naming conflicts.

These resources might help you:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#NS
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0130655678

Kevin
(I earlier CC'd xmlschema-dev-request instead of xmlschema-dev by accident)

On 8/25/2009 9:41 AM, avihai marchiano wrote:
> WOW!!!!!!!!
>
> It work!!!!
>
> So, what am i missing if omit the target namespace? 
> By the way i also need to do additonal change and add prefix to the default xlmns
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Kevin Braun <kbraun@obj-sys.com>
> To: Avihaimar <avihaimar@yahoo.com>
> Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 4:13:17 PM
> Subject: Re: Unqualified elment - but still have prefix at the root
>
> I think what you may be trying to say is that despite the fact that you are using elemFormDefault="unqualified", your elements are qualified.  Global elements belong to the target namespace; the elemFormDefault only applies to local elements (ie, within a complex type).  If you don't want any of your elements to be in a namespace, you will have to get rid of the targetNamespace.
>
> Kevin
>
> On 8/25/2009 8:49 AM, Avihaimar wrote:
>   
>> Last one - (Thank you!!!!!)
>>
>>
>> I know - i can handle this XML with any prefix. Its depend on the
>> declaration in the header (xlmns).
>>
>> But,
>>
>> XML without any prefix will failed in validation . I want to have the option
>> to not have prefix at all and i dont know how can i do this either by
>> chanigng the xsd or the instance.
>>
>> When i send example of XML to the cutomers i want to send them XML with no
>> prefix and i didnt success to have one by chanigng the xsd or the instance.
>>
>>
>>
>> Avihaimar wrote:
>>   
>>     
>>> Hey, 
>>> i have two schemas A,B. B import A. Both of them defined as unqualified element, but the xml that generated
>>> from B has n1: as a prefix for the root elements. Is there a way to have no prefix at all? 
>>> Thank you
>>>
>>>     
>>>       
>>  
>>     
>
>
>       
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 25 August 2009 17:20:03 UTC