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

Re: Nil should not require validity

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 16:39:27 -0400
To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
Cc: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <87fznasmbk.fsf@nwalsh.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

/ Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu> was heard to say:
| 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".

Actually, that's a bug in the spec. It shouldn't be looking at any
attributes, it should be looking at the appropriate PSVI property.
That property will only exist if the document has been validated.

| 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 "

As Michael Rys suggested in another reply, such a definition could
lead to inconsistencies.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

- -- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM    | It is as bad as you think. And they are out
XML Standards Architect | to get you.
Web Tech. and Standards |
Sun Microsystems, Inc.  | 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iD8DBQE+yUD/OyltUcwYWjsRArRDAJ9m1Qs8CEblFCEM3vc7mEqoDqeAaACeI7fE
otBtPxhaFP0Ya8nIz0OcN1k=
=uhLR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Monday, 19 May 2003 16:40:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:14:24 GMT