RE: Namespaces,

["David E. Cleary" <davec@progress.com>]

> It effectively introduces a requirement that applications support W3C
> XML Schemas, not just XML 1.0+Namespaces, in order to be able to process
> these documents even at the level of figuring out which components are
> in which vocabulary.

I can send you a valid XML document that has a table element that refers to
a piece of furniture in one context, and a group of colums and rows in
another and not use a schema. Sure, Schema makes it much easier for
developers to work with this document, but it didn't just invent a new type
of document as you insinuate.

> Maybe that's a convenient way to force users to work with W3C XML
> Schema, but it seems a horrendous trap to me.

Most people create a schema that models the instance document they want to
send, not the other way around. There is no conspiracy involved in getting
people to use XML Schema. The spec has more than enough traction at this
point to have to resort to this. Feel free to show me real XML Schemas where
unqualified elements are used.

Dave