[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Andrew S. Townley writes:
> . . .
> I re-read the XSD spec in this area and hacked around with some examples
> using xmllint, just so I could prove the way I thought it should work.
> If our intent is to allow only elements defined in subsequent versions
> of said schema to be used within the extension point, as I understand
> the mechanism, the value of processContents for the any refrence MUST be
> "lax". This ensures that a client with an older version of the schema
> can validate my new message containing the hot salami, and my newer
> client can correctly determine if my message contains salami past the
> sell-by date, because it knows about the new element(s).
>
> Like I said, based on a few examples, this works the way I would
> expect. However, I was wondering if the great wide world could see any
> potential problems with using a value of "lax" to achieve what we
> intend.
That's precisely what processContents="lax" was designed for, you're
doing the 'right thing'.
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@inf.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEAuTUkjnJixAXWBoRAqiEAJ0b5oCdvzAVkONs0jGVMt788SsA0ACeIbhI
9S9whTMUOM7vkBqVLbK18m4=
=l5MI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
