|
[XMLSCHEMA-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: SV: What's a valid instance...James Clark
From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:31:43 -0600 Message-Id: <24983DAF-95C4-40F6-9CB9-47A1A7D8A701@acm.org> Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>, "Bryan Rasmussen" <BRS@itst.dk>, "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com On 22 Mar 2007, at 08:50 , noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote: > I believe that in your example, the <bar/> is not valid, because > there's > no global declaration for it. That will be valid (with [validation attempted] = none) if validation is initiated in 'lax' mode (third bullet item in the list of ways to initiate schema validity assessment in section 5.2 of XSD 1.0, called 'lax wildcard validation' in the drafts of 1.1). Only if you specify what 1.1 calls 'strict wildcard validation' will the processor know that you want an error raised because 'bar' has no declaration. And even then the PSVI on the element will say [validity]=valid; the difference between lax and strict wildcard validation is visible only from the point of view of the caller, not from the PSVI. > This has been discussed many times. In my mind, it was a tradeoff.... In addition to the rationales you mention, I'd also mention that specifying a required root tends to make reuse of schema modules in other contexts harder. --C. M. Sperberg-McQueenReceived on Thursday, 22 March 2007 15:31:49 GMT |
Subscribe in XML format
|






