The re-writing is pretty mechanical... having said that, I agree that
the real lesson is that the requirement for a new schema facility which
is a DTD superset and also namespace-sensitive is becoming glaringly
obvious.
>That concedes in effect that there are instances which
>simply *cannot* be validated, because they use the same QNames
>in inconsistent ways.
That doesn't follow; you can certainly construct a DTD to describe
any conceivable well-formed instance. If what you're saying is
that a single namespace contains usages of the same element or attribute
that are so wildly inconsistent that a DTD won't be helpful, then
that is a problem of that namespace which would exist even were it
standing alone - thus is orthogonal to the issue of namespaces. -Tim