[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson)
- To: Richard Lanyon <rgl@decisionsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 16:19:33 +0100
Richard Lanyon <rgl@decisionsoft.com> writes:
> 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.
Your analysis is correct. Unqualified local elements and default
namespace declarations don't mix well.
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
|
