W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: R-117: pfianyTypeLax: Problem with processContents for the ur-type

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 17 Sep 2002 11:48:47 +0100
To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5bwupk51tc.fsf@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>

Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> writes:

> Hi Henry,
> 
> >> I think it would be much more useful it it were 'lax'. This would
> >> enable people to write schemas that focused on a few elements or
> >> attributes and validate source documents with those schemas. For
> >> example, it would be great to be able to validate a document
> >> against an XLink schema without necessarily having to have a schema
> >> for the entire document. With 'skip', any unrecognised element
> >> would mean that whole chunks of the document would be ignored.
> >
> > The WG agrees with you, I believe, but the REC needs to change to
> > make the ur-type really be the universal type, which requires
> > 'skip'. But don't worry, what I've been asked to do is make such a
> > type the root of the type hierarchy, but keep processContents='lax'
> > on the type called anySimpleType, which would still be the default
> > for untyped elements, etc. Details still being worked out . . .
> 
> Presumably you don't mean "anySimpleType", but rather "anyType"?

Yes, sorry.

> In other words, you're saying that the ur-type definition, at the
> top of the type hierarchy, will have skip validation, but the type
> definition used by default for elements that have no declared type
> will have lax validation. Sounds good.

Yes.

ht
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
          W3C Fellow 1999--2002, part-time member of W3C Team
     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
		     URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2002 06:48:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:13:01 GMT