RE: Defining recursive elements?

The following is from the analysis of industry schemas that we did a few years ago
http://www.idealliance.org/xmlusa/05/call/xmlpapers/49.1704/.49.html#S3.8

20 out of 63 industry schemas had documents that did not specify a target namespace.

Stan Kitsis
Microsoft Corporation

-----Original Message-----
From: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Henry S. Thompson
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 3:53 AM
To: Boris Kolpackov
Cc: Pete Cordell; xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Subject: Re: Defining recursive elements?


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Boris Kolpackov writes:

> Any studies to support these numbers? I just did a quick check over
> a bunch of real-world schemas in our repository. Out of 18 schemas,
> 7 are "unqualified" (~40%) and 11 are "qualified" (~60%).


In my collection of schema documents, I find

   753 qualified
   220 [not specified, defaults to unqualfied]
    49 unqualified

ht
- --
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGUXopkjnJixAXWBoRAgDzAJ0QB6OWfJyf0ZZ4BHDiXGQuP1U0wQCdH5XQ
00wiF2peR7r20A1j13JrEZo=
=WWCb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----