RE: [XQuery] MS-XQ-LC1-124

> 
> Daniela Florescu wrote:
> 
> >> Thus we would like to propose:
> >> 1. Make default validation mode to be skip
> >
> >
> > Agreed.
> 
> By default, this would mean that a constructed element "foo" would not
> match element(foo). I'm not at all sure that's a good idea.

[Michael Rys] First, why is that a requirement?

Second, if we actually define element(foo) to mean any element with that
name (and use something like element(global foo) to refer to elements in
the  schema context), then we could solve this problem in a more
consistent and understandable way.

> >> 2. Remove Schema context from the spec
> >
> >
> > Agreed.
> 
> I think this flies in the face of usage in documents governed by XML
> Schema. Most elements are locally declared. When we did a serious
count,
> it was about 80% in the schemas we examined - we did this count
> specifically to determine if this feature was needed. For an invoice,
do
> you really want to make it impossible to specify a customer element or
a
> product element as a function parameter? That's the kind of problem
you
> would get if you did this.

[Michael Rys] I think for most of these cases, it is sufficient to know
the name and the content type. So all you need is to use a named type
(the element does not need to be globally declared). Educating people to
write such schemata should not be a problem...

> >> 3. Make support for validation modes lax and strict and the
validate
> >> keyword an optional feature.
> >
> >
> > XQuery has already too many optional features (people are
> > already complaining that it doesn't look like a standard)
> > We should try to minimize them, not to add more of them.
> >
> > Could we tie it with schema import ?
> 
> I think tying it to schema import makes sense.

[Michael Rys] As I pointed out earlier: I do not think so.

> Jonathan

Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2004 01:13:31 UTC