[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Namespace: what's the correct usage?
- From: Jonathan Borden <email@example.com>
- To: Martin Gudgin <firstname.lastname@example.org>,Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- 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
> > The difference is that in XML elements are first class entities, that is
> > "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
> Schema allows
> me to say
> <complexType name='person'>
> <element name='given' type='string' />
> <element name='family' type='string' />
> and the given and family elements *are* declared in the scope of
> the person
huh? i thought "person" was an element not a complexType.