• From: Dennis Sosnoski <dms@s...>
• To: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@g...>
• Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 20:16:02 +1300

On 10/29/2010 05:32 PM, Mukul Gandhi wrote:
> I personally do not agree that only elementFormDefault="qualified"
> should exist (either by syntax or implicitly available by language
> design) in XML schema language. Allowing schema authors to specify
> either "qualified" or "unqualified" for elements (and also for
> attributes) is a significant design made into the XML Schema language
> (and i personally do find this OK :)
>   

Well, I'll agree that attributeFormDefault="qualified" is just as useful
as the default elementFormDefault="unqualified".

  - Dennis

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: elementFormDefault [was:Venetian Blinds vs Garden ofEden]
    • From: Michael Kay <mike@s...>

• References:
  • Re: Venetian Blinds vs Garden of Eden patterns for industry standards XML Schemas
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>
  • RE: Venetian Blinds vs Garden of Eden patterns forindustry standards XML Schemas
    • From: Philip Fennell <Philip.Fennell@m...>
  • Re: Venetian Blinds vs Garden of Eden patterns for industry standards XML Schemas
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>
  • Re: Venetian Blinds vs Garden of Eden patterns for industrystandards XML Schemas
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: Venetian Blinds vs Garden of Eden patterns for industrystandards XML Schemas
    • From: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@g...>