[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> If your reasoning were to be followed, then the nasty SOAP and XSD
> pattern of non-namespaced child elements would make sense, and I
> can't accept that.
I made a statement about attributes (actually I just quoted one from the
namespace spec) so i fail to see how you can infer anything about
elements from that statement. (And I agree with you, the XSD
default behaviour of non-namespaced elements is dire)
> Since, as you say, the *only* reasin to give something a namespace is
> to allow it to be inserted willy-nilly into other vocabularies.
the namespace spec clearly states that giving something a global name
although that provides a mechanism to refer to attributes/elements makes
no statements about whether it is "proper usage" to do so in any
particular case. So whether another vocabulary allows a reference
to such an attribute is explictly not an issue here.
> This specification makes no assertions as to the proper usage of such
> attributes. The combination of the namespace name and the attribute
> name uniquely identifies the global attribute.
David
_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.
|
