What I meant was not having namespace prefixes in the instance document 
since in this particular case the xml instance presents business content and 
the element naming should be exact.
So if I am using a common element coming from a common component schema it 
should look like this:
<Schema>
  <Aggregate>
    <MaterialBatchIdentifier>
    ...

instead of:
<Schema>
  <Aggregate>
    <common:MaterialBatchIdentifier>

Does that help?

I've understood that I can get rid of prefixes by using the correct design 
(venetian blind) and the default namespace definition (xmlns="foo", not 
xmlns:foo="foo") if only one namespace is declared for the instance. But 
then if I'd like to have a separate namespace for the common components I 
run out of options. Thus, I've concluded that maybe I just have to have 
common component schema in no namespace and use include to have it available 
(chameleon).
If the idea of the schema architecture is to assure that the same name will 
not be used for different things the chameleon design would support/force 
it. What is it that I'd lose if I switch from import to include?

Rgrds,

Antti

>
> > I have a schema that imports another one. I'm trying to keep
> > the namespace
> > prefixes hidden in the xml instance
>
>Sorry, I've no idea what you mean. What does a "hidden prefix" look like?
>
>Michael Kay
>http://www.saxonica.com/
>
>



From george@o... Wed Jan 04 13:20:15 2006
Received: from lisa.w3.org (