W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > January to March 2006

[Bug 2741] wd-13: Underspecification in fallback to lax processing

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 21:11:13 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1F03XN-0006UL-9Q@wiggum.w3.org>


           Summary: wd-13: Underspecification in fallback to lax processing
           Product: XML Schema
           Version: 1.1 only
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows XP
            Status: NEW
          Keywords: needsDrafting
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Structures: XSD Part 1
        AssignedTo: ht@w3.org
        ReportedBy: holstege@mathling.com
         QAContact: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org

s recently pointed out in an exchange between Sandy Gao and Henry Thompson on 
the IG list (under the subject heading "Validation rules for children of skipped 
elements"), the paragraph at the end of Schema-Validity Assessment (Element) is 
slightly underspecified. It says:

If the item cannot be strictly assessed, because neither clause 1.1 nor clause 
1.2 above are satisfied, [Definition:] an element information item's schema 
validity may be laxly assessed _if its context-determined declaration is not 
skip_ by validating with respect to the ur-type definition as per Element 
Locally Valid (Type)

[emphasis added by HT]

The spec does not say whether validation with respect to the ur-type definition 
is allowed if the item's context-determined declaration IS skip, or not.

The spec also does not call out this and other implementation-dependent 
behaviors; it should.

Request concerning
Part 1
Schema-Validity Assessment (Element)
laxly assesed

Transition history
raised on 28 Oct 2004 by C. M. Sperberg-McQueen (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/
accepted on 17 Dec 2004 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/

Background, proposals, threads, notes

RESOLVED: Classify issue wd-13 as "accepted"

_This_ issue stems from SG's challenge to prove that if have an element which 
matches a skip wildcard and it has a child that would be invalid against 
declaration, then I am not allowed to fallback to lax validation for children of 
skip wildcard. SG's point is the spec is underspecified and we need to make it 
clear: "you may do this under the following circumstances _and only_ under those 
circumstances" Suggest we should therefore "accept" this as an issue. 
agreed on 22 Apr 2005 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/

We have a resolution

Action history
Part 1 Editors
accepted on 22 Apr 2005 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/

Structures editors to produce wording proposal for wd-13.
Received on Friday, 20 January 2006 21:11:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:50:04 UTC