Can someone please help me see what I'm missing: the reason cited for prefixing schema elements makes no sense to me:
Each of the elements in the schema has a prefix xsd: which is associated with the XML Schema namespace through the declaration, xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema", that appears in the schema element. The prefix xsd: is used by convention to denote the XML Schema namespace, although any prefix can be used. The same prefix, and hence the same association, also appears on the names of built-in simple types, e.g. xsd:string. The purpose of the association is to identify the elements and simple types as belonging to the vocabulary of the XML Schema language rather than the vocabulary of the schema author.
I am unable to conceive of a valid schema document that can use non-XML Schema language vocabulary for element names and attribute names. e.g. <elemment naem="xyz" type="xsd:string"/>
And I don't believe prefixing them will make the declaration any more valid:
<myNamespace:elemment naem="xyz" type="xsd:string"/>
Another way to look at this is that element names used within an XML Schema document strike me as being syntactical in nature: my schema is invalid if I use an element named "elemment" or an attribute named "naem"
The only scenario I can devise to (almost) make sense of the W3 statement above is if an author were to create an XML document instance (i.e. not a Schema document) with a root element <schema>... which would seem to me a dubious practice...
I'm reminded of what Geert Bormans recently said to me about a related post
[It] does not add real information, so it is just syntactic overhead
Doesn't that apply here? Are there scenarios whereby one can use non-Schema component element names as element names within an XML Schema document?