[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
- From: Richard Tobin <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 23:45:25 +0100 (BST)
>OK, I think I get it. Local element types allow the <line>
>element to have different validation rules depending on
>whether it's a child of <matt:music>, <matt:graphics> or
><matt:text>. Clearly something that DTD's can't do but is
>I have a question. With schemas, can I arrange for the
><matt:line> (note it's in a namespace) element to be validated
>differently depending on whether it's a child of <matt:music>,
><matt:graphics> or <matt:text>? -Tim
Yes, these are exactly the two cases we're arguing about. A local
element declaration inside the type of matt:music
<element name="line" form="unqualified"> ...
locally declares the element line (in no namespace), whereas
<element name="line" form="qualified"> ...
locally declares the element matt:line. The default value for "form"
can be set with the elementFormDefault attribute, and the default
default is unqualified. The same goes for attributes, where (in my
opinion) unqualified is a lot more natural.
There are two points in dispute: whether local elements are good at
all, and whether unqualified ones are (no doubt there is also a view
that *only* unqualified ones are good, but I haven't noticed anyone