Okay then, that's reasonable. The next question is if anybody knows of =
any
processor that would have problems with that construct? Should there be =
an
xmlns:blank="" perhaps to actively qualify the non-namespace qualified
elements? This all seems somewhat weird, maybe should just write it down =
as
the kind of thing one should not look at too long. 

Cheers,
Bryan Rasmussen

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: xmlschema-dev-request@w...
[mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w...]P=E5 vegne af Michael Kay
Sendt: 3. april 2006 14:10
Til: Bryan Rasmussen; xmlschema-dev@w...
Emne: RE: no targetNamespace, elementFormDefault qualified



No, because form=qualified means "in the target namespace if there is =
one,
or in the non-namespace if there isn't".

The schema spec (like XSLT) generally treats the
set-of-names-in-no-namespace in the same way as a namespace, despite the
perverse insistence of the Namespaces Rec that this set of names is not =
a
namespace at all.

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/



> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmlschema-dev-request@w... 
> [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w...] On Behalf Of Bryan Rasmussen
> Sent: 03 April 2006 12:27
> To: xmlschema-dev@w...
> Subject: no targetNamespace, elementFormDefault qualified
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
>  Given that "If the URI reference in a default namespace 
> declaration is
> empty, then unprefixed elements in the scope of the 
> declaration are not
> considered to be in any namespace" thus there is no namespace 
> to make up the
> namespace part of the QName if one has a blank namespace, 
> shouldn't a schema
> with no targetNamespace and a declaration of 
> elementFormDefault qualified
> raise errors? I'm asking because I just encountered a schema with this
> structure, and it bugs me. 
>  
> 
> Cheers,
> Bryan
> 
> 




From mike@s... Mon Apr 03 12:35:39 2006
Received: from aji.w3.org ([133.27.228.225])
	by frink.w3.