W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > May 2003

RE: Nil should not require validity

From: Michael Rys <mrys@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 12:42:22 -0700
Message-ID: <5C39F806F9939046B4B1AFE652500A3A0546715F@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, <public-qt-comments@w3.org>

This would lead to severe inconsistencies and a slow creeping
XSD-ification of XML using one of the worst features of XSD.

Any attribute of the namespace associated with xsi can only have its
special impact on the data model through validation. Anything else will
lead to problems.

Best regards

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@metalab.unc.edu]
> Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 7:04 AM
> To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Nil should not require validity
> Section 4.3.3. of the Data Model draft states:
>      If the [validity] property exists and is "valid" and the
> [attributes] property contains an attribute with the local-name "nil"
> and the namespace URI "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance",
> then "true", otherwise "false".
> I do not see why validity should be required for an element to be
> nil. The mere presence of the xsi:nil="true" attribute should be
> sufficient. Or just maybe it should also be required that the element
> be empty. However, there's no reason it needs to be valid. I have
> profitably used xsi:nil in documents without any schema or DTD.
> I suggest deleting the phrase "the [validity] property exists and is
> "valid" and "
> --
>    Elliotte Rusty Harold
>    elharo@metalab.unc.edu
>    Processing XML with Java (Addison-Wesley, 2002)
>    http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xmljava
>    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0201771861/cafeaulaitA
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 21:44:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:45:12 UTC