W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > September 2013

[Bug 23328] Allowed values for default-validation attribute value

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 07:35:29 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-23328-523-3WdWWuADAB@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23328

--- Comment #2 from Vitaliy <vitaliy.yudenkov@abrasoft.net> ---
(In reply to Michael Kay from comment #1)
> I think the decision not to allow "lax" or "strict" as valid values for
> default-validation was paternalistic; they aren't allowed because they would
> not very often be useful. They could also impose an excessive performance
> overhead if the processor doesn't find a way to avoid validating elements at
> every level of the tree. It's quite hard to optimize away the redundant
> validation in the general case, so I'm inclined to stick with the status quo.
> 
> As for the current text, saying
> 
> Therefore, such a processor must treat any [xsl:]validation or
> default-validation attribute with a value of preserve or lax as if the value
> were strip.
> 
> is probably a bit careless and should change to
> 
> Therefore, such a processor must treat any [xsl:]validation attribute with a
> value of preserve or lax, or any default-validation attribute with a value
> of preserve, as if the value were strip.

Thank you for yours response. I understand the reason of why @validation and
@default-validation could have different value. So "lax" or "strict" and not
allowed values for @default-validation and processor signals XTSE0020 error.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 24 September 2013 07:35:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:45:53 UTC