Funny thing is I was just coming to the list to get clarification on this. I poured through the specs and couldn't find where it was explicitly stated as illegal.
So, then I assume Amila's fix is the official correction of the problem. Thanks everyone for your input. --- Anne Thomas Manes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I asked for clarification on the xml-dev list. > Michael Kay concurs with Dennis. > Duplicate child elements are allowed, even when > elementFormDefault="qualified". > > Anne > > On 3/8/07, Anne Thomas Manes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Maybe we should ask for clarification from > Priscilla on this, but my > > intepretation of > > > > "Locally scoped attribute and element > declarations" > > > > is that the rule refers only to unqualified > attributes and elements. > > If you specify elementFormDefault="qualified", > then all elements in > > the schema are globally scoped unless you specify > form="unqualified" > > on a specific element. > > > > Anne > > > > On 3/8/07, Dennis Sosnoski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Hi Amila, > > > > > > No, there is no such constraint. Schema actually > states explicitly > > > > (http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#concepts-nameSymbolSpaces) > that: > > > > > > "Locally scoped attribute and element > declarations are special with > > > regard to symbol spaces. Every complex type > definition defines its own > > > local attribute and element declaration symbol > spaces, where these > > > symbol spaces are distinct from each other and > from any of the other > > > symbol spaces. So, for example, two complex type > definitions having the > > > same target namespace can contain a local > attribute declaration for the > > > unqualified name "priority", or contain a local > element declaration for > > > the name "address", without conflict or > necessary relation between the two." > > > > > > Like most parts of the schema specification, > this doesn't appear to be > > > written for clarity. Why the gratuitous > reference to "unqualified name" > > > when referring to the attribute, for instance, > when it doesn't make any > > > difference whether the name is qualified or > unqualified? But the > > > statement that "each complex type definition > defines its own local > > > attribute and element declaration symbol spaces" > is as clear and > > > definite as anything in schema. > > > > > > To make things even more complicated, according > to Priscilla Walmsley > > > ("Definitive XML Schema", 13.4.4 Duplication of > element-type names) you > > > can reuse the same element name within a > particular complex type > > > definition providing the elements have the same > type. This apparently > > > means that it's fine to do a definition of the > type: > > > > > > <complexType> > > > <sequence> > > > <element name="name" type="string"/> > > > <element name="id" type="long"/> > > > <element name="name" type="string"/> > > > </sequence> > > > </complexType> > > > > > > I don't know the particular entrails which were > read to come to this > > > conclusion (which I haven't found documented in > the schema > > > recommendation), but since she's part of the > Schema Working Group her > > > statements on schema are generally considered > authoritative. Something > > > to keep in mind when you're writing your code to > handle complex types. > > > > > > - Dennis > > > > > > Dennis M. Sosnoski > > > SOA and Web Services in Java > > > Training and Consulting > > > http://www.sosnoski.com - > http://www.sosnoski.co.nz > > > Seattle, WA +1-425-939-0576 - Wellington, NZ > +64-4-298-6117 > > > > > > > > > > > > Amila Suriarachchi wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3/8/07, *Dennis Sosnoski* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > > > > > Your statement about the names is > incorrect, Anne. Schema doesn't > > > > allow > > > > the same name to be used for different > global definitions, but you're > > > > fine reusing names for local elements in > different complexTypes. > > > > > > > > I am also not clear about this and would like > to put this question? > > > > Is there any constranit that says *every > element in schema should have > > > > a unique Qutalified name?* > > > > since the qualified name of an element only > depends on the namespace > > > > and the local part of the element then we have > to conclude that it is > > > > not possible. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Amila Suriarachchi, > > > > WSO2 Inc. > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
