Defining a root element's content model makes sense, but declaring the
root element itself belies the purpose of a type library, I think.


>>> [log in to unmask] 01/25/05 9:40 AM >>>
> Or to put it another way, prefixes are required for types with
> content rather than simple content.

But in addition,  if the reference is to a *root* element of an
schema then you need a prefix.  It just happens that the type library
doesn't currently define any root elements, but it might in the
For example, we have defined a number of root elements in mods,
<mods> and <modsCollection> so that other schemas could reference them.
would think that some of these would be moved to the type library.


Another option is to include the
> attribute form="unqualified" on elements local to complex type
> definitions in the MSTL schema. Then the condition (1) is reversed:
> local elements will have to appear unprefixed even if the MODS/MADS
> elements are prefixed, e.g.
> <m:mads xmlns:m="">
>     ...
>     <m:address>
>         <city>Nowhere</city>
>         <state>Arizona</state>
>     </m:address>
> </m:mads>
> --Andy
> >>> [log in to unmask] 01/24/05 5:11 PM >>>
> (1) within your mods or mads instances, references to elements
> in
> the type library will have to include a namespace prefix.  (Only
> elements
> though, not datatypes, and most of the type library will be
> not
> elements).