Re: Permit (greedy) conflicting wildcards

On 21 Mar 2007, at 17:10 , Michael Kay wrote:

>
>> There are already a number of constructs
>> that have the same closed world feel.
>
> That's true: for example lax validation, and redefines. They're all  
> a bit
> problematic, because you can't inspect a schema document and an  
> instance and
> know whether the instance is valid without knowing somethng else  
> about the
> validation environment. However, I don't think there are currently  
> any cases
> where an element E that conforms to a declaration D causes the  
> instance to
> be valid when D is absent from the schema but invalid when it is  
> present.
> Intuitively, this seems a little weird.

Hear, hear!  I think this argument is spot on.

But it's fair to say that the WG did not make its decision to
adopt the not-in-schema wildcard without having heard this
argument.  It's just that it was only a minority in the WG who
thought that a document should not become invalid because
you learn that one of its elements is valid.


--CMSMcQ