Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
This seems to contradict the quote "lax If the item, or any items among its [children] <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/#infoitem.element> if it's an element information item, has a uniquely determined declaration available, it must be ·valid· with respect to that definition, that is, ·validate· where you can, don't worry when you can't." Reading the spec, I find it hard to see how your quote from is said to apply specifically to wildcard declarations where processContents is lax. I also note the use of the word "may" in the quoted excerpt. ________________________________ From: Henry S. Thompson [mailto:ht@c...] Sent: Fri 9/12/2003 1:53 AM To: Dare Obasanjo Cc: DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO); xml-dev@l... Subject: Re: XSD question >> Let's say I declare element alpha to have a sequence of one >> or more xs:any children with processContents="lax". Then I >> declare element beta to have a specific content model. I can >> put beta elements and anything else as children of alpha, and >> if any of those beta elements violate the declared content >> model, a schema-validating parser will flag it as an error. >> However, if a beta element that violates the declared content >> model is a *grandchild* of alpha instead of being a direct >> child, the schema-validating parser isn't supposed to flag it. >> >> Do I understand this correctly? > > Yes. Um, beg to differ. Lax processing is recursive, so the non-beta children of alpha will be laxly validated as well, unto the n-th generation. The relevant quote from the REC is: "[A]n element information item's schema validity may be laxly assessed if [it was accepted by a 'lax' wildcard and no top-level declaration for it was found] by validating with respect to the ur-type definition" ht -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh Half-time member of W3C Team 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@c... URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
|
