• From: Martin Gudgin <marting@d...>
• To: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>,Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI <kohsukekawaguchi@y...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 23:33:17 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@d...>; "Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI"
<kohsukekawaguchi@y...>; <xml-dev@l...>
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 10:52 PM
Subject: RE: Namespace: what's the correct usage?


<SNIP>
> In reading the XML Schema -1 spec describing the targetNamespace of an
> element decl:
>
> "If form is present and its ·actual value· is qualified, or if form is
> absent and the ·actual value· of elementFormDefault on the <schema>
ancestor
> is qualified, then the ·actual value· of the targetNamespace [attribute]
of
> the parent <schema> element information item, or ·absent· if there is
none,
> otherwise ·absent·."
>
> I cannot see why the "person" element decl is any different than the
"given"
> element decl, as they both have the same ancestor <schema> and no form nor
> elementFormDefault attribute values.
>
> If I am not reading this correctly then it is incomprehensible to me.

[MJG]
The piece you are missing is that the default value of elementFormDefault is
'unqualified'

Regards

Martin

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Namespace: what's the correct usage?
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>

• References:
  • RE: Namespace: what's the correct usage?
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Namespace conformance & SAX2
• Next by Date: RE: Namespace conformance & SAX2
• Previous by thread: RE: Namespace: what's the correct usage?
• Next by thread: RE: Namespace: what's the correct usage?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread