Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> If your reasoning were to be followed, then the nasty SOAP and XSD > pattern of non-namespaced child elements would make sense, and I > can't accept that. I made a statement about attributes (actually I just quoted one from the namespace spec) so i fail to see how you can infer anything about elements from that statement. (And I agree with you, the XSD default behaviour of non-namespaced elements is dire) > Since, as you say, the *only* reasin to give something a namespace is > to allow it to be inserted willy-nilly into other vocabularies. the namespace spec clearly states that giving something a global name although that provides a mechanism to refer to attributes/elements makes no statements about whether it is "proper usage" to do so in any particular case. So whether another vocabulary allows a reference to such an attribute is explictly not an issue here. > This specification makes no assertions as to the proper usage of such > attributes. The combination of the namespace name and the attribute > name uniquely identifies the global attribute. David _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.
|
