Defining a root element's content model makes sense, but declaring the root element itself belies the purpose of a type library, I think. --Andy >>> [log in to unmask] 01/25/05 9:40 AM >>> > Or to put it another way, prefixes are required for types with complex > content rather than simple content. But in addition, if the reference is to a *root* element of an external 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 future. For example, we have defined a number of root elements in mods, besides <mods> and <modsCollection> so that other schemas could reference them. I would think that some of these would be moved to the type library. --Ray 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="http://www.loc.gov/mads/"> > ... > <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 defined > in > the type library will have to include a namespace prefix. (Only > elements > though, not datatypes, and most of the type library will be datatypes, > not > elements).