Excellent thanks Anne.  That is a big help.

So that means that if the form is qualified it takes on the targetNamespace.
I think I got it.

Thanks,

Chris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 3:50 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: namespace question
>
>
> Sorry I neglected to answer #2:
>
> If elementFormDefault="qualified" then all elements in the schema --
> whether local or global -- are in the targetNamespace, and all
> elements in
> a schema instance must be namespace qualified. If
> elementFormDefault="nonqualified", or if the attribute is not specified,
> then global elements (direct child of the <schema> element) are in the
> targetNamespace, and local elements (descendents of other
> definitions) are
> in no namespace. Local elements in a schema instance must not be
> namespace
> qualified. Note that the default form can be overridden in the
> schema on an
> element-by-element basis using the form attribute (form="qualified" or
> form="unqualified").
>
> Anne
>
> At 11:35 AM 9/26/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> >I have a few followup questions about this.
> >
> >1) What is the preferred way to do this?  Is it preferred to use
> >elementFormDefault="qualified" or not?  Is there anything mentioned about
> >this in ws-i or any other spec that tries to standardize web services?
> >
> >2) So if elementFormDefault="qualified" is not set and the element is a
> >child of the schema root then it should use the
> targetNnamespace?  Otherwise
> >if it is a local element it should not.  If
> elementFormDefault="qualified"
> >is set then all should use the targetNamespace.  Just to make sure.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Chris
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 8:54 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: namespace question
> > >
> > >
> > > Per your schema, the element <text> is a local element, which
> > > means that it
> > > should not be namespace qualified. Hence Axis does produce an accurate
> > > realization of your element. Since the <operation> has a default
> > > namespace,
> > > you must use xmlns="" to turn off the default namespace.
> > >
> > > If you added elementFormDefault="qualified" to your <schema>
> > > element, then
> > > all of your local elements would also have qualified names,
> in which case
> > > they would inherit their namespace from their parent element.
> > >
> > > Anne
> > >
> > > At 05:20 PM 9/25/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> > > >Hello,
> > > >
> > > >I have a question about namespaces while using document style
> > > web service...
> > > >
> > > >Say I have a method defined by the schema...
> > > >
> > > ><schema
> > > >     targetNamespace="http://www.domain.com/namespace";
> > > >     xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema";>
> > > >   <element name="operation">
> > > >     <complexType>
> > > >       <sequence>
> > > >         <element maxOccurs="1" name="text" type="xsd:string"/>
> > > >       </sequence>
> > > >     </complexType>
> > > >   </element>
> > > >...
> > > ></schema>
> > > >
> > > >It appears that the code that is generated by WSDL2Java
> > > generates a message
> > > >that would look something like this...
> > > >
> > > ><operation xmlns="http://www.domain.com/namespace";>
> > > >   <text xmlns="">
> > > >     blah
> > > >   </text>
> > > ></operation>
> > > >
> > > >Why does this add xmlns="" to the text element?  Should this not
> > > be there so
> > > >that the top level namespace persists?
> > > >
> > > >I want to know this because I am of the opinion that the
> namespace should
> > > >persist to the elements defined inside the element and you
> > > should be able to
> > > >check against the namespace of these elements on the server.
>  With the
> > > >client adding xmlns="", the namespace is null and I can't check
> > > against the
> > > >namespace.  Is it acceptable for the namespace to be null or the
> > > namespace
> > > >defined by targetNamespace?
> > > >
> > > >Thanks for any help,
> > > >
> > > >Chris
> > >
>

Reply via email to