[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Namespace: what's the correct usage?

• From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>
• To: Martin Gudgin <marting@d...>,Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI <kohsukekawaguchi@y...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 16:39:11 -0400

Martin Gudgin wrote:
>
> The *unqualified* children are always in 'no namespace'. Assume
> there is an
> xmlns='' on the qualified element if that helps...

this is getting even more confusing.

how about this: why aren't the elements in the _same_ namespace? that makes
the most sense to me. people are confused enough about namespaces, i don't
see any reason to make the matter worse now that XML Schema has been
released.

> >
> > The difference is that in XML elements are first class entities, that is
> the
> > "given" element is not declared within the scope of the "person" class.
>
> But attributes are declared in the scope of their owner element. Why not
> child elements? This is the crux of the question I think.

That's XML. That's SGML. Are you trying to say that XML Schema 1.0 changes
this?

> XML
> Schema allows
> me to say
>
> <complexType name='person'>
>   <sequence>
>     <element name='given' type='string' />
>     <element name='family' type='string' />
>   </sequence>
> </complexType>
>
> and the given and family elements *are* declared in the scope of
> the person
> 'class'
>

huh? i thought "person" was an element not a complexType.

-Jonathan

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Namespace: what's the correct usage?
    • From: Martin Gudgin <marting@d...>

• References:
  • Re: Namespace: what's the correct usage?
    • From: Martin Gudgin <marting@d...>

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