Namespaces 'n Schemas

["Jim Theriot" <Jim.Theriot@posc.org>]

I hope someone can help me with an apparent discrepancy between the
Namespaces spec and the XML Schema spec and XSV:

According to the Namespaces spec, each element in an XML document (qualified
or unqualified) has a type name comprised of a local name and an optional
namespace name.  The value of the namespace name is determinable,
independent of any schema information, by finding the applicable 'xmlns'
attribute and taking its value.  There is a default mechanism, so that both
qualified and unqualified names may be equivalently associated with a
namespace.  I assume that association by qualification and association by
inheritance from a qualified ancestor are 'equivalent' - at least the
namespaces spec doesn't define any intended distinct semantic.

The XML Schema spec places restrictions:  in certain cases (depending on
'elementFormDefault', globality of declaration, default namespace
declaration in the instance, ...) a qualified name must be used or may not
be used.  Does the XML Schema contradict the Namespaces resolution logic, or
does it only require or prohibit qualification?  Would the namespace
associations resolved by the Namespaces algorithm ever be different than the
association resolved according to the XML Schema spec?  I notice that when
XSV reports the erroneous lack of qualification of an element, it reports it
as being in no namespace, rather than as an unqualified element in its
inherited namespace -- is this a reporting shorthand, or an indication that
XSD defines a namespace inheritance logic that overrides one defined in the
namespaces spec?

If a document is parsed with a DOM parser, is the resulting infoset a tree
with element nodes and namespaces associated in accordance with the
Namespaces spec?  If the infoset is then validated with an XML Schema
validator, wouldn't the issue of explicit qualification of element names
necessarily be indeterminate?  Or do I have an incorrect view of the
'canonicalness' of the infoset?  Or is the explicitness of association
somehow an information or semantic issue and not just a lexical one?

Thanks in advance for any enlightenment,
Jim
--------------------------
Jim Theriot
POSC -- Energy eStandards
9801 Westheimer, Suite 450
Houston TX 77042
Jim.Theriot@POSC.org
+1.713.267.5109
--------------------------