Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> nothing changes the rules of XML 1.0 and XML namespaces. In your example > _each_ <name> element is qualified by the http://foo namespace. none are > prefixed. > > > or it is an unqualified element from the urn:x2 namespace (which > > is the more correct assumption). > > there is no such thing as an "unqualified element from the urn:x2 > namespace". doesn't exist. This is where the confusion is, and this is what I was trying to point out. Without the xmlns='' a validator wouldn't know where to look for the declaration of name (which according to XML Namespaces would be http://foo and according to XML Schemas would be urn:x2). If the unr:x2 schema defined the name element (and kept the default unqualified setting) then that schema should be used for validation instead of the http://foo definition of name (at that level). > this example, and your analysis of it are proof that this construct is > confusing. it is _genuinely_ confusing. i say "let's keep life as simple as > possible" My analysis was intended to prove the confusion while adhering to the spec. I agree that simplicity should win out in this case, by all means... > I agree, (aside from the fact that urn:x2 is not a 'legal' URI) > http://example.org is defined by an RFC to be used as an example URI. Sorry for perpetuating the bad URI. -- Jeff Rafter Defined Systems http://www.defined.net XML Development and Developer Web Hosting
|
