Unqualified element in XSD definition

[mavis]

Unqualified element in XSD definition

For some reason, we may need to define elements in XSD to be
"unqualified".


According to the design patterns of XSD, it seems they do not recommend

to define elements in this way....it seems it will influence XPATH /
XSLT, etc...


Anyone has any experience on this? Any problem will be caused by
unqualified elements?


Thanks a lot for your advices!

 

[mavis]

Anyone has different ideas about this?

http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/06/06/schemasimple.html?page=2

which recommend to use "qualified" instead of "unqualified"

 

[Joe Kesselman]

The purpose of namespaces is to leave room for your XML-based language
to be intermixed with other XML-based languages. Using unqualified names
increases the risk of conflicting definitions.

Think about whether you, or your customers, will ever be in the position
of wanting to do this -- for example, embedding your documents as the
body of a SOAP message. Unless you can say "no" with absolute certainty,
you really should stick with namespace-qualified element names.

Namespaces are a basic part of XML these days. Get used to them.

 

[mavis]

Thanks a lot for your advices!