[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]

  • From: Richard Lanyon <rgl@d...>
  • To: xml-dev@l...
  • Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 09:14:35 +0100 (BST)

On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Roger L. Costello wrote:

[introduction to elementFormDefault="unqualified" snipped]

> Here's an example of a conforming instance document:
> 
> <?xml version="1.0"?>
> <my:camera xmlns:my="http://www.camera.org"
>                xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema-instance"
>                xsi:schemaLocation= "http://www.camera.org Camera.xsd">
>         <body>Ergonomically designed casing for easy handling</body>
>         <lens>300mm zoom, 1.2 f-stop</lens>
>         <manual_adaptor>1/10,000 sec to 100 sec</manual_adaptor>
> <my:camera>

Isn't there a problem here?
A document author may well see a document like the above and
try and rewrite it using a default namespace, thus:

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<camera xmlns="http://www.camera.org">
<body>Stuff</body>
<lens>More stuff</lens>
<manual_adaptor>Even more stuff</manual_adaptor>
</camera>

Except (assuming I understand this correctly, which is far from
guaranteed) that won't validate, because body, lens and manual_adaptor
are now qualified and in the wrong namespace. I'd suggest this is far
from intuitive for a document author, unless he/she knows how the
schema works, and the whole idea is that the author should be
insulated from the complexities of the schema.

Does that make sense?

-- 
Richard Lanyon (Software Engineer) |     "The medium is the message"
XML Script development,            |             - Marshall McLuhan
DecisionSoft Ltd.                  |




Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member