Lists Home |
Date Index |
This seems to contradict the quote
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:email@example.com]
Sent: Fri 9/12/2003 1:53 AM
To: Dare Obasanjo
Cc: DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO); firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] 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?
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
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
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: email@example.com
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]