If we do decide to continue to make the use of the TREX namespace
optional, then certainly the TREX for TREX should allow it. This is
quite easy: create a file trex-no-ns.trex specifying TREX for TREX with
no namespace; then trex.trex can be:
<choice>
<include href="trex-no-ns.trex"/>
<include href="trex-no-ns.trex"
ns="http://www.thaiopensource.com/trex"/>
</choice>
James Clark wrote:
>
> A more basic question is whether TREX should require the use of the TREX
> namespace or whether it should continue to allow no namespace to be used
> for TREX elements.
>
> (Using the term "default namespace" to refer to an absent or null
> namespace is a little confusing, since the XML Namespace Rec uses
> "default namespace" to refer to the namespace declared by the "xmlns"
> attribute.)
>
> James Tauber wrote:
> >
> > The current TREX for TREX assumes the TREX namespace is being used.
> >
> > Should/could it allow for both the case where the schema being validated
> > uses the TREX namespace OR the default namespace?
> >
> > James Tauber
