That's one option. But a Schema (or DTD) is not mandatory, and not all schemas can easily be linked (few tools handle relaxng or schematron for namespace spec).
The core purpose of XML namespaces, and that of any namespace really, is better modularity and compositionability by preventing name collisions. This is useful when manipulating XML via XML (e.g. XSL, Genshi, ...) or when using multiple XML dialects in the same file (either because they're orthogonal or because they complement one another) for instance. You could do it by explicit prefixing à la C or Objective-C, but it tends to get dreary, requires everybody's cooperation and generally looks bad (not that xml namespaces look overly sexy).
> As it is, this XML is not parsable
It's parsable with a non-namespace-aware XML parser (ignoring tagsoup parsers as we're pretenting this is supposed to be an XML document)
Apparently, the JDK's javax.xml.parsers.*Factory can return namespace-unaware parsers and — even stranger — do so by default:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/javax/xml/parsers/D...
> Specifies that the parser produced by this code will provide support for XML namespaces. By default the value of this is set to false
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/javax/xml/parsers/S...
> Specifies that the parser produced by this code will provide support for XML namespaces. By default the value of this is set to false.
Whether they qualify as "modern parsers" can be debated and I didn't test their behavior, but there you are.
prefix:name-of-element doesn't mean anything by itself, you need to know what 'prefix' stands for.
As it is, this XML is not parsable; it's not well-formed and therefore it shouldn't even be called XML; it's just text with random tags thrown in.
It is, indeed, quite shocking.