[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 2005-02-23 10:11 +0000, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>NOTATION isn't broken in W3C XML Schema, it's just grown up and uses
>namespaces, like all other named aspects of the spec.
Where in the XML Information Set
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-infoset-20040204 does a notation have a
namespace-qualified name?
Elements (2.2) have [namespace name], [local name], and [prefix].
Attributes (2.3) have [namespace name], [local name], and [prefix].
Notations (2.10) just have [name].
>Things defined in W3C XML Schema schemas have names, which may be in
>namespaces.
But wouldn't the name in the information set need to, then, be namespace
qualified?
>So if your schema document specifies a target namespace, the Notations
>you define in it will be in that namespace.
>
>So to refer to them, you have to use a qualified name.
Since the information set only includes [name], this would imply the prefix
is not ignorable and there is no matching on the namespace URI.
>None of this should be surprising
Your statement surprised me quite a bit ... I never thought notations were
namespace qualified.
I've always known that processing instruction targets may be named by
notation names, and sure enough Processing Instruction Information Items
2.6 has [notation], but nowhere there does it say the notation is
namespace-qualified ... and I've never seen a processing instruction target
needing to be namespace-qualified.
So, really, your statement was very surprising to me. I'm anxious to learn
more and be corrected in my thinking in this regard.
...................... Ken
--
World-wide on-site corporate, govt. & user group XML/XSL training.
G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/x/
Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0 +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
Male Breast Cancer Awareness http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/x/bc
Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal
|
