Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: email@example.com (Henry S. Thompson)
- To: Richard Lanyon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 16:19:33 +0100
Richard Lanyon <email@example.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">
> <lens>More stuff</lens>
> <manual_adaptor>Even more stuff</manual_adaptor>
> 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.
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: firstname.lastname@example.org