Yes, I think that's what I would expect. Mike
> On 11 Nov 2020, at 10:49, Ghislain Fourny <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Mike, > > That's a good catch. > > If we want to "save the spirit of the spec" while stretching its letter > reasonably, my interpretation of > > "The schema import may [...] declare that target namespace to be the default > element/type namespace" > > is that a schema import that declares a default element/type namespace also > literally constitutes a "default element/type namespace declaration" in an > extended sense (in addition to the "vanilla" default element/type namespace > declarations of 4.14). > > As a consequence, my interpretation of > > "A Prolog may contain at most one default element/type namespace declaration > [err:XQST0066]." > > would speak in favor of throwing XQST0066 for the query below. > > Does this reasoning make sense? > > Kind regards, > Ghislain > >> On 11 Nov 2020, at 09:25, Michael Kay <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I can't see any rule that makes it an error to write >> >> import schema default element namespace "http://example.org/abc";; >> declare default element namespace "http://example.org/xyz";; >> >> This looks to me like an oversight in the spec. >> >> I think Saxon simply uses whichever one comes last. >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> Michael Kay >> Saxonica >> _______________________________________________ >> [email protected] >> http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ [email protected] http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
