Re: [xml-dev] Venetian Blinds vs Garden of Eden patterns for industry standards XML Schemas

From
David <>
To
Date
2010-10-29T11:14:44Z
ID
<>
Thread
Re: [xml-dev] Venetian Blinds vs Garden of Eden patterns for industry standards XML Schemas
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

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<>  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 :)
>
>
>
>