• From: "bryan rasmussen" <rasmussen.bryan@g...>
• To: "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@c...>
• Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 14:19:45 +0200

>
> I'll defer to others with more expertise on the W3C schema question
> but regarding your test instance, the namespaces specification
> section 2.2 forbids what you've put forward for testing:
>
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-names-20060816/#iri-use
>    The empty string, though it is a legal URI reference, cannot
>    be used as a namespace name
>
> The empty string can only be used for the default namespace to
> specify no namespace ... it cannot be used for a prefixed namespace.


yes, which is what I meant by the line of my email that said:
"which by my understanding would be very illegal."

But actually I realized that this is allowed (no targetnamespace,
elementformdefault qualified on schema). This thing has tripped me up
before, it just strikes me as wrong.

Cheers,
Bryan Rasmussen

• References:
  • what is the meaning of elementFormDefault="qualified" in a schema without a targetnamespace?
    • From: "bryan rasmussen" <rasmussen.bryan@g...>
  • Re: what is the meaning of elementFormDefault="qualified" in a schema without a targetnamespace?
    • From: "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@C...>