By my count there are 224 uses of elements in the Schemtron namespace in the PDF output of the Guidelines. Of those, 90 are expressed with <s:* and 134 are expressed with <sch:*.
Clearly this is problematic. We should be using a consistent namespace prefix except in the case where we are demonstrating “Look, you can use whatever prefix you want. You can say matron: if you like.”
A quick look says that most, if not all, of the s: prefixes are on Schematron code used inside an example of <constraint>; in the tagdocs both the s: and sch: prefixes appear frequently. I have not noticed any other prefixes used for the Schematron namespace.
I am not sure what is going on here, but my first instinct (which may well be wrong) is that at times the source has a prefix already present (sch:), in which case it is used, and at times the source just has xmlns="http://purl.oclc.org/dsdl/schematron", in which case the Stylesheets assign a prefix (s:). This is just a guess.
By my count there are 224 uses of elements in the Schemtron namespace in the PDF output of the Guidelines. Of those, 90 are expressed with
<s:*and 134 are expressed with<sch:*. Clearly this is problematic. We should be using a consistent namespace prefix except in the case where we are demonstrating “Look, you can use whatever prefix you want. You can saymatron:if you like.” A quick look says that most, if not all, of the s: prefixes are on Schematron code used inside an example of<constraint>; in the tagdocs both the s: and sch: prefixes appear frequently. I have not noticed any other prefixes used for the Schematron namespace. I am not sure what is going on here, but my first instinct (which may well be wrong) is that at times the source has a prefix already present (sch:), in which case it is used, and at times the source just hasxmlns="http://purl.oclc.org/dsdl/schematron", in which case the Stylesheets assign a prefix (s:). This is just a guess.