[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
These are all great points...
> 2. API users who have written schemas using the usual defaults
> (elementFormDefault qualified, attributeFormDefault unqualified) get
> into a fidget when their instances don't validate (because they assign
> namespace-qualified names to attributes, instead of unqualified ones).
> In one of the three occasions that I recall, the developer became
> increasingly hostile to discussion of the behavior of attributes,
By usual defaults do you mean de facto defaults? The actual defaults are
both unqualified. The actual defaults create documents that make little or
no sense from what I have seen because, regardless of the "unqualified"
setting, the root (because it is global) *must* be:
<n:name xmlns:n="http://www.example.com";>
<first/>
<second/>
<last/>
</n:name>
I remember myself and others arguing strongly against this on xmlschema-dev
but to no avail. I think the de facto defaults (i.e. what the books teach,
elementFormDefault qualified, attributeFormDefault unqualified) on the other
hand are not problematic. I think that they are a symptom of a larger
problem. They simply expose the overall strange behavior of attributes with
namespaces.
Cheers,
Jeff Rafter
Defined Systems
http://www.defined.net
XML Development and Developer Web Hosting
|
