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

Re: Namespace: what's the correct usage?

  • From: Martin Gudgin <marting@d...>
  • To: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>,Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI <kohsukekawaguchi@y...>, xml-dev@l...
  • Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 21:47:59 +0100

element is not declared

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@d...>; "Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI"
<kohsukekawaguchi@y...>; <xml-dev@l...>
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 9:39 PM
Subject: RE: Namespace: what's the correct usage?


> 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 reason I leave children unqualified is because it feels the most natural
fit to Java/C++/C#/VB.NET. I don't see why this is confusing...

>
> > >
> > > 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?

I don't see why child elements can't be considered locally scoped just like
attributes. I'm not saying they *always* have to be. If you don't want to
use local scoping then don't....

>
> > 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.

I left out the top-level element decl for conciseness. How's this;

<xs:schema xmlns:xs='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema'
           xmlns:this='urn:example.org.people'
           targetNamespace='urn:example.org.people' >

  <xs:complexType name='person' >
    <xs:sequence>
      <xs:element name='given' type='xs:string' />
      <xs:element name='family' type='xs:string' />
    </xs:sequence>
  </xs:complexType>

  <xs:element name='person' type='this:person' />

</xs:schema>

It's *both* an element and a complex type.

Regards

Martin Gudgin
DevelopMentor



PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!

Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
Email
First Name
Last Name
Company
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
 

Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats, enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.


Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website. they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please click here.

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.