[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Richard Lanyon <rgl@decisionsoft.com>
- To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
- Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 09:14:35 +0100 (BST)
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Roger L. Costello wrote:
[introduction to elementFormDefault="unqualified" snipped]
> Here's an example of a conforming instance document:
>
> <?xml version="1.0"?>
> <my:camera xmlns:my="http://www.camera.org"
> xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema-instance"
> xsi:schemaLocation= "http://www.camera.org Camera.xsd">
> <body>Ergonomically designed casing for easy handling</body>
> <lens>300mm zoom, 1.2 f-stop</lens>
> <manual_adaptor>1/10,000 sec to 100 sec</manual_adaptor>
> <my:camera>
Isn't there a problem here?
A document author may well see a document like the above and
try and rewrite it using a default namespace, thus:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<camera xmlns="http://www.camera.org">
<body>Stuff</body>
<lens>More stuff</lens>
<manual_adaptor>Even more stuff</manual_adaptor>
</camera>
Except (assuming I understand this correctly, which is far from
guaranteed) that won't validate, because body, lens and manual_adaptor
are now qualified and in the wrong namespace. I'd suggest this is far
from intuitive for a document author, unless he/she knows how the
schema works, and the whole idea is that the author should be
insulated from the complexities of the schema.
Does that make sense?
--
Richard Lanyon (Software Engineer) | "The medium is the message"
XML Script development, | - Marshall McLuhan
DecisionSoft Ltd. |
|
