[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi Henry,
>>As for using "xsd" or "xs" as a prefix I don't care much one way or
>>the other but I think it would be nice if the W3C would stick to one
>>and use that through out. Unless they're trying to make a point that
>>the prefix doesn't matter but I don't think that's the case.
>>
>>
>
>Speaking for myself _only_, yes, the is indeed the case, I am trying
>to reinforce that point.
>
Hmm, wouldn't it then be better to start of with a section that shows
the same example schema written in different ways with regards to
namespaces. For example, after the following section in the Primer [1].
"Each of the elements in the schema has a prefix |xsd:| which is
associated with the XML Schema namespace through the declaration, |
xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema";|, that appears in the |
schema| element. The prefix |xsd:| is used by convention to denote the
XML Schema namespace, although any prefix can be used. The same prefix,
and hence the same association, also appears on the names of built-in
simple types, e.g. |xsd:string|. The purpose of the association is to
identify the elements and simple types as belonging to the vocabulary of
the XML Schema language rather than the vocabulary of the schema author.
For the sake of clarity in the text, we just mention the names of
elements and simple types (e.g. | simpleType|), and omit the prefix."
Here you could easily provide three short example schemas (one using
default namespaces and two using different prefixes) but then go on to
say that for the sake of clarity the _same_ prefix will be used through
out the specification.
Maybe it's just me but I would find this clearer than the current
"prefix-switching" in different parts of the spec.
Cheers,
/Eddie
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#POSchema
>
>ht
>
>
|
