Thanks!

Anyone has different ideas about this:
http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/06/06/schemasimple.html?page=2

which recommend to use "qualified" instead of "unqualified"



Priya Lakshminarayanan wrote:
> The issue with having unqualified elements in your XML is that, you cannot
> use default namespace at the root of the document, since this will qualify
> all the elements in the document. Instead you will have to specifically
> prefix the elements that are qualified.
> You can read more about it here:
> http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/11/20/schemas.html?page=2#elementFormDefault
> For arguments on the other side: http://www.xfront.com/HideVersusExpose.pdf
>
> Thanks,
> Priya
>
> "mavis" <donghuad@g...> wrote in message
> news:1149142736.397869.295490@y......
> > Unqualified element in XSD definition
> >
> > For some reason, we may need to define elements in XSD to be
> > "unqualified".
> >
> >
> > According to the design patterns of XSD, it seems they do not recommend
> >
> > to define elements in this way....it seems it will influence XPATH /
> > XSLT, etc...
> >
> >
> > Anyone has any experience on this? Any problem will be caused by
> > unqualified elements?
> >
> >
> > Thanks a lot for your advices!
> >