Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
David Brownel wrote > > "For compatibility, it is an error if an element in the document can match > > more than one occurrence of an element type in the content model. For more > > information, see E Deterministic Content Models." > > > > ... the "For Compatibility" clause does > > not indicate that an XML processor is free to ignore the constraint. > > The "it is an error" clause indicates that. If it's just an "error", > not a "fatal error" or "validity error", reporting is optional. > That's what the definitions section says up front. While we're being pedantic ;-) there is no phrase "validity error" in the document, but we all know what you mean. The definition for "error" is defined as: [Definition: A violation of the rules of this specification; results are undefined. Conforming software may detect and report an error and may recover from it.] So, a processor may report the error, and may recover from it. But the results are undefined. Our XML Validator reports non-deterministic content models as errors for good reason. We believe that our users want a validator to be as strict and as accurate as possible ~ thereby maximising the chance that their xml will be readable by any processor on any platform. Regards ~Rob Rob Lugt ElCel Technology http://www.elcel.com [1] http://www.elcel.com/products/xmlvalid.html
|
