Just for completness, what schema would make the following xml valid: <tns:foo xmlns:tns="http://www.foo.com";> <tns:bar>cory</tns:bar> <tns:baz>anne</tns:baz> </tns:foo>
Thanks, Krzysztof --- Cory Wilkerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anne, > > So, given the following schema: > > <schema targetName="http://www.foo.com"/> > <element name="foo"> > <complexType> > <sequence> > <element name="bar" > type="xsd:string"/> > <element name="baz" > type="xsd:string"/> > </sequence> > <complexType> > </element> > </schema> > > > You would recommend that implementations produce the > following realization of a schema instance: > > <tns:foo xmlns:tns="http://www.foo.com";> > <bar>cory</bar> > <baz>anne</baz> > </tns:foo> > > I think most of the community considers your word > the gospel, I hope they take notice of this exchange > :) > > Thanks, > Cory > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 9:52 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: xmlns=" " in the doc\literal SOAP > message > > > Cory, > > Yes -- you are right -- bar and baz are local > elements. What that means is > that their element names are of type NCname > (non-colon name) rather than > QName (qualified name). > > Although most systems will accept: > > <foo xmlns="http://www.foo.com";> > <bar>cory</bar> > <baz>anne</baz> > </foo> > > it isn't accurate, because it implies that bar and > baz are namespace qualified. > > The proper way to represent the document would be: > > <tns:foo xmlns:tns="http://www.foo.com";> > <bar>cory</bar> > <baz>anne</baz> > </tns:foo> > > or this: > > <foo xmlns="http://www.foo.com";> > <bar xmlns="">cory</bar> > <baz xmlns="">anne</baz> > </foo> > > It would be wrong to produce a document like this: > > <tns:foo xmlns:tns="http://www.foo.com";> > <tns:bar>cory</bar> > <tns:baz>anne</baz> > </tns:foo> > > > Also note that your schema definition was > incomplete. It should look like this: > > <schema targetName="http://www.foo.com"/> > <element name="foo" > <complexType> > <sequence> > <element name="bar" > type="xsd:string"/> > <element name="baz" > type="xsd:string"/> > </sequence> > <complexType> > </element> > </schema> > > or like this > > <schema targetName="http://www.foo.com"; > xmlns:tns="http://www.foo.com"/>> > <complexType name="foo> > <sequence> > <element name="bar" > type="xsd:string"/> > <element name="baz" > type="xsd:string"/> > </sequence> > <complexType> > <element name="foo" type="tns:foo"/> > </schema> > > (there are three or four other ways to describe it > -- but the point is that > you must define the element named "foo") > > Anne > > At 09:02 AM 9/2/2003 -0500, you wrote: > >Anne, > > > >When you say "local" elements -- do you mean local > to the parent element > >as defined in the schema? In the following > example, would bar and baz be > >considered local elements? > > > ><schema targetName="http://www.foo.com"/> > > <complexType name="foo> > > <sequence> > > <element name="bar" > type="xsd:string"/> > > <element name="baz" > type="xsd:string"/> > > </sequence> > > <complexType> > ></schema> > > > >I would think when this was serialized to the wire > you'd see something like: > > > ><foo xmlns="http://www.foo.com";> > > <bar>cory</bar> > > <baz>anne</baz> > ></foo> > > > >After all, don't bar and baz technically belong to > the foo.com namespace? > > > >Thanks for any input, > >Cory WIlkerson > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 8:40 AM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: xmlns=" " in the doc\literal SOAP > message > > > > > >Dimuthu, > > > >Yes. It's okay for empty namespace definitions to > go across the wire. In > >fact, it some cases it might be required. > > > >In your SOAP request, the <query> element defines a > default namespace > >(xmlns="blah" as opposed to xmlns:foo="blah"), > which then applies to all > >subelements of the <query> element, unless it is > overridden by another > >default namespace definition. If the <description> > and <ItemId> elements > >are local elements to <query>, then they should not > be namespace qualified, > >and in that case, you should specify an empty > default namspace definition > >in each of these subelements to override the active > default namespace. > > > >Now, if the <description> and <ItemId> are global > elements, then this > >message would be in error. > > > >So whether or not this message is correct depends > on the schema definition > >for the message. > > > >Anne > > > >At 02:20 AM 9/1/2003 -0700, you wrote: > > >Hi all, > > > > > >I'm trying to write a doc\literal web service and > my soap message appears > > >as below......... > > > > > ><query xmlns="urn:HistorySriLanka"> > > > <description xmlns="">Wood carving of an > Elephant</description> > > > <ItemId xmlns="">ER234</ItemId> > > ></query> > > > > > >Has anybody else has come across a situation like > this? Is it ok for empty > > >xmlns="" tags to go in the wire? Any help is > greatly appreciated. > > > > > >Thank you, > > >Dimuthu > > > > > > > > >Do you Yahoo!? > > > ><http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=10469/*http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com>Yahoo! > > >SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design > software > >
