Re: [xml-dev] Venetian Blinds vs Garden of Eden patterns for industrysta

[David <dlee@calldei.com>]

  Now I'm really confused.   Given the examples below.
Does this imply that an xpath expression has to be changed when using a 
schema aware processor and the associated schema is known ?


David A. Lee
dlee@calldei.com
http://www.xmlsh.org


On 10/29/2010 12:32 AM, Mukul Gandhi wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 2:43 AM, David Carlisle<davidc@nag.co.uk>  wrote:
>> elementFormDefault is really just a wart in XSD and I can't see any reason
>> why it would ever be set to anything other than qualifiesd
> This is by design in XML Schema language. Please do consider these two
> XML document variants and related explanations:
>
> 1.
> <x xmlns="http://ns1";>
>    <y/>
> </x>
>
> Here the outermost element and all included elements are in namespace,
> and this can be specified by elementFormDefault="qualified" definition
> in schema document.
>
> 2.
> <ns1:x xmlns:ns1="http://ns1";>
>    <y/>
>    <y/>
> </ns1:x>
>
> Here only the outermost element is in a namespace, but inner ones are
> not in namespace (the inner elements are in no/null namespace). These
> document constraints can be specified by
> elementFormDefault="unqualified" (and this is available by default in
> a schema document, if not specified by schema author).
>
> I personally do not agree that only elementFormDefault="qualified"
> should exist (either by syntax or implicitly available by language
> design) in XML schema language. Allowing schema authors to specify
> either "qualified" or "unqualified" for elements (and also for
> attributes) is a significant design made into the XML Schema language
> (and i personally do find this OK :)
>
>
>
>