- From: Elena Litani <elitani@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 10:43:29 -0400
- To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- CC: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Hi Henry, Thank you for prompt reply. "Henry S. Thompson" wrote: > Um, have you looked at what the [schema documents] property requires > for its _value_? Of course :). However, I found the spec unclear. The definition for the [schema documents] property specifies that both [document location] and [document] properties exist _if_available_: document location Either a URI reference, if available, otherwise ·absent· document A document information item, if available, otherwise ·absent·. Your interpretation is that _if_available_ means that the lightweight processors do not have to expose [document] property but they still should expose the [document location] one (even though the spec says _if_available_ for this property too): > So a lightweight processor can tell me where it found documents, but > doesn't have to build and/or expose an infoset for them. I am glad to hear that this is the indention. However, my interpretation is different: if a document was found it is _available_ and it is not up to a processor to choose to expose the property or not. And given that in some cases the spec mentions explicitly that lightweight processors may leave some property empty (and this is not the case for the [document] property), I thought that my interpretation is correct. Thank you, -- Elena Litani / IBM Toronto
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2002 10:43:43 UTC