• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 09:49:22 -0400

On 01 Aug 2001 09:27:05 -0400, David E. Cleary wrote:
> It is easy to contrive examples that use unqualified elements for no reason.
> And you may even find real examples where the author didn't know what he was
> doing. But the fact is that I haven't really seen the use of unqualified
> elements in real schemas, and my guess is that if I do, there most likely is
> a real reason to do so.

I'd be curious to know what counts as "a real reason".  Other than
typographic short-cutting and a vaguely cultural fondness for
unqualified property names, I've yet to see a "real reason", especially
a "real reason" where qualified names could NOT be used.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Why unqualified? (was RE: ANN: SAX Filters for NamespaceProcessing)
    • From: "David E. Cleary" <davec@p...>

• References:
  • RE: ANN: SAX Filters for Namespace Processing
    • From: "David E. Cleary" <davec@p...>

• Prev by Date: RE: ANN: SAX Filters for Namespace Processing
• Next by Date: Re: Use of XML ?
• Previous by thread: RE: ANN: SAX Filters for Namespace Processing
• Next by thread: RE: Why unqualified? (was RE: ANN: SAX Filters for NamespaceProcessing)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread