XML namespace declarations that are made on the root element are in scope for all elements and attributes in the document. This means that an easy way to declare XML namespaces is to declare them only on the root element. For example: <Department xmlns:addr="http://www.tu-darmstadt.de/ito/addresses" xmlns:serv="http://www.tu-darmstadt.de/ito/servers"> <Name>DVS1</Name> <addr:Address> <addr:Street>Wilhelminenstr.

I don't know the answer to this question, but the likely reason is that the hope that they would simplify the process of moving fragments from one document to another document. An early draft of the XML namespaces recommendation proposed using processing instructions to declare XML namespaces. While these were simple to read and process, they weren't easy to move to other documents. Attributes, on the other hand, are intimately attached to the elements being moved.

This is mainly a stylistic decision. Several XML books advise representing semantics in elements rather than attributes where possible. One advantage of doing this is that elements have structure, but attributes do not. If you find that what you are representing really has more than one part, you can create a hierarchical structure with an element. With attributes, you are limited to an unordered list.

XML sourece <AAA> <BBB> 4.33 <CCC id="1.2">12345</CCC> <CCC id="2.2">ABC</CCC> <CCC id="3.6">0.334</CCC> <AAA id="4.34"/> 5.67 </BBB> <CCC id="5.1">CCC4</CCC> <CCC id="6.3">56</CCC> </AAA> XSLT sourece <xsl:stylesheet version="1.0" xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.

In the early days of HTML different groups and companies added new elements and attributes to HTML at will. This threatened to cause a chaos of different non-interoperable versions of HTML. XML (the X stands for Extensible) allows anyone to use elements and elements from different languages, but for a browser or other user agent to know which element belongs to which language, you have to tell it. The namespace declarations do just that.

XML attributes are additional information attached to an XML element; they are pairs of attribute name and attribute value, e.g. target="EUR". XML attributed are enclosed in the opening tag, according to the following syntax:

The XML namespaces recommendation defines a way to distinguish between duplicate element type and attribute names. Such duplication might occur, for example, in an XSLT stylesheet or in a document that contains element types and attributes from two different DTDs. XML namespace is a collection of element type and attribute names. The namespace is identified by a unique name, which is a URI reference.

XML namespaces were originally designed to provide universally unique names for elements and attributes. In practice, they are used in XML technologies when unique names are needed, such as for complex type names in XML Schemas and function names in XQuery. This FAQ focuses on the first case, but most of what it discusses applies to the broader cases as well. an example of why XML namespaces are needed, consider the following two XML documents: <?xml version="1.

Reusable schemas. Many industry groups have developed their own XML schemas. To avoid collisions with common names in other schemas, all of them have assigned one or more XML namespaces to their schemas. As a result, it is possible to reuse elements and attributes defined in these schemas in new schemas without worry of name collisions.

XML namespaces are collections of names, nothing more. That is, they contain the names of element types and attributes, not the elements or attributes themselves. For example, consider the following document. <foo:A xmlns:foo="http://www.foo.org/"> <B foo:C="foo" D="bar"/> </foo:A> The element type name A and the attribute name C are in the http://www.foo.org/ namespace because they are mapped there by the foo prefix.

If you don't have any naming conflicts in the XML documents you are using today, as is often the case with documents used inside a single organization, then you probably don't need to use XML namespaces. However, if you do have conflicts today, or if you expect conflicts in the future due to distributing your documents outside your organization or bringing outside documents into your organization, then you should probably use XML namespaces.

In particular, DTDs can contain qualified names (see question 7.3) but XML namespace declarations do not apply to DTDs (see question 7.2). Element type and attribute declarations in a DTD are expressed in terms of qualified names, not expanded names. Which means... This situation has caused numerous complaints but, as XML namespaces are already a recommendation, is unlikely to change.

XML namespaces really aren't that hard to understand -- all the recommendation specifies is a way to map qualified (prefixed) names to universal names. That's it. Nothing else. Unfortunately, most people who learn about XML namespaces have a past history with naming conventions and bring a lot of ideas with them. These ideas make it hard to understand XML namespaces. Even the term namespaces causes problems.

Yes. You could resolve name clashes by simply renaming the offending element types or attributes and then, during processing, using architectural forms to transform them to names that are recognizeable by different modules in the application. Although you may have to rename some element types or attributes, you won't have to change your application modules. A discussion of architectural forms is beyond the scope of this paper.

The need for XML namespaces and the basic idea that a two-part naming system (or something similar) is needed is not controversial. However, the design of XML namespaces -- that is, the way XML namespaces are declared and used in an XML document -- has, at times, been very controversial. (If you want to see just how controversial, go to the archives of the XML-DEV mailing list and search on the word "namespace" or look at some of the articles on Robin Cover's Namespaces in XML page.

There are at least two types of .NET attribute. The first type I will refer to as a metadata attribute - it allows some data to be attached to a class or method. This data becomes part of the metadata for the class, and (like other class metadata) can be accessed via reflection. An example of a metadata attribute is [serializable], which can be attached to a class and means that instances of the class can be serialized.

Although the XML 1.0 recommendation anticipated the need for XML namespaces by noting that element type and attribute names should not include colons, it did not actually support XML namespaces. Thus, XML namespaces are layered on top of XML 1.0. In particular, any XML document that uses XML namespaces is a legal XML 1.0 document and can be interpreted as such in the absence of XML namespaces. For example, consider the following document: <foo:A xmlns:foo="http://www.foo.

When people ask this question, they usually assume that validity is different for documents that use XML namespaces and documents that don't. In fact, it isn't -- it's the same for both. Thus, there is no difference between validating a document that uses XML namespaces and validating one that doesn't. In either case, you simply use a validating parser or other software that performs validation.

A single XML Schema document declares elements and attributes for a single XML namespace, known as the target namespace. This is done with the targetNamespace attribute on the xs:schema element. For example, the following schema declares the elements A, B, and C in the http://www.foo.org/ namespace: <xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" targetNamespace="http://www.foo.

was shown in question 8.1, a schema may use elements or attributes from multiple XML namespaces. And although a given XML Schema document can only declare elements and attributes in a single XML namespace, the relationship between XML namespaces and XML Schema documents is not one-to-one. This is because multiple documents can all declare elements and attributes in the same XML namespace.

If you are using Castor's default introspection to automatically map the objects into XML, then there is no guarantee on the order. It simply depends on the order in which the fields are returned to Castor using the Java reflection API. Note: If you use a mapping file Castor will generate the XML in the order in which the mapping file is specified.

XML source <AAA> <BBB> <CCC id="c1">CCC1</CCC> <CCC id="c2">CCC2</CCC> </BBB> <BBB> <CCC id="c3">CCC3</CCC> </BBB> <CCC id="c4">CCC4</CCC> <BBB> <CCC id="c5">CCC5</CCC> <CCC id="c6">CCC6</CCC> </BBB> <CCC id="c7">CCC7</CCC> </AAA> This one does not give what I wanted <xsl:stylesheet version="1.0" xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.

In general, microformats rejects the use of explicit namespace prefixes in documents as unnecessary for solving the 80/20 of problems that microformats seeks to solve. The general approach taken is not to attempt to generalise to the extent of RDF-in-HTML (http://research.talis.com/2005/erdf/wiki/Main/RdfInHtml), rather to define more domain-specific formats. The social aspect of the microformats Process (http://microformats.org/wiki/process) is such that conflicts ought to be prevented.

There is no single answer to this: a lot depends on what you are designing the document type for. The two extremes are best illustrated with examples.

Ah, the perennial XML issue... Some elements of morphml are necessarily XML elements because XML Schema's unique/ref/keyref mechanisms do not work with attributes. The jury is still out on whether some elements should become attributes to avoid the mangling of whitespace by users and/or parsers.

If the element you want the data from is number 2 and the attribute is "Comment" then get... formula_1_Quantity = SimEnvironment.Elements(2).attr("Comment").Value and set... SimEnvironment.Elements(2).attr("Comment").Value =5

The XML namespaces recommendation does not redefine validity, such as in terms of expanded names (see Namespace Myth #9). Thus, validity is the same for a document that uses XML namespaces and one that doesn't. In particular, with respect to validity: Qualified names are treated like other names. For example, in the name foo:A, foo is not treated as a namespace prefix, the colon is not treated as separating a prefix from a local name, and A is not treated as a local name.