Lists Home |
Date Index |
"DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO)" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>Subscribe by email to email@example.com
> Well, as long as we've got the thread going here...
>>Lax processing is recursive, so the non-beta
>>children of alpha will be laxly validated as well, unto the n-th
> Then why was the word "children" used in the quoted passage ("...or any
> items among its [children]")instead of "descendants"?
That phrase is coming out in an agreed erratum (but it's not being
replaced with descendants, so the point still stands).
> My experience seems to bear out what Dare says. Here's my schema:
> In the absence of the kinds of declarations described by Jeni for other
> potential parents of beta, descendants of the processContents="lax"
> element's children seem to be processed as if those children had a
> processContents value of "skip". Otherwise, the x element in the second beta
> element would have triggered an error, right?
XSV flags errors for both the child and the grandchild.
> My basic goal is this: to write a schema that accepts everything in a
> well-formed document except those elements specifically declared in that
> schema, wherever they may turn up in the document. It's not looking
> encouraging in XSD, although I have managed it in RNG.
I think your schema is precisely the way the W3C XML Schema REC
intended for this to be achieved -- it appears the REC needs
clarification in this area, as evidently Xerces C++ and XSV disagree.
I'd be interested to hear from other implementors wrt this example.
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: firstname.lastname@example.org
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]