elementFormDefault="unqualified"

[Ray Plante]

Hey Paul,

> http://blog.jclark.com/2007/04/validation-not-necessarily-harmful.html

Very interesting!  (Oh, what we might have done differently...)

> On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Guy Rixon wrote:
> > Note how I've had to do the form: qualified by default on the schema as
> > a whole and unqualified explicitly on the local element inside the
> > complex type. If I put elementFormDefault="unqualified" then the schema
> > checker rejects cap:capability, so _it_ think the default applies to
> > global elements. Maybe it's wrong.
>
> I believe oXygen is incorrect in this case.  I've studied this pretty

On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, Paul Harrison wrote:
> It is not the only tool that cannot find the correct schema to validate 
> against if there is no explicit namespace on the root element - eclipse 
> cannot either - which is why I always actually produce my example instances 
> with the following schema 
> http://www.eso.org/~pharriso/ivoa/schema/ResourceSet-v1.0.xsd. However, I 
> agree that in principle the xml parser should be able to find this out from 
> the namespace of the xsi:type attribute value on the root element, but 
> perhaps they do not on purpose.....

I think Guy was referring to different problem.  If validater apparently 
was trying to apply elementFormDefault="unqualified" to the global root
element, which is incorrect (see 
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#UnqualLocals).

cheers,
Ray