W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > January to March 2008

[Bug 5412] Is lax assessment required after "missing sub-component"?

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:05:20 +0000
CC:
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1JI3do-0002Wt-OG@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5412


David_E3@VERIFONE.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |needsDrafting
  Status Whiteboard|                            |important, work




------- Comment #1 from David_E3@VERIFONE.com  2008-01-24 15:05 -------
Concerning Validation Rule: Schema-Validity Assessment (Element)
>From the minutes...

RESOLUTION: we have phase one agreement to 1) attempt to reword to say "An
element information item's schema-validity is strictly assessed if and only of
all of the following are true": and 2) look at all instances in the spec of the
words "strictly assessed" and dependent terms to make sure we are not causing
trouble.


MSM: We should distinguish two things.  1) what does the phrase "lax assessment
mean" - it means use element locally valid type with xs:anytype, assessing
children recursively lax, with certain PSVI consequences 2) separate from the
definition of lax assessment, there should be statements that in some
conditions where strict can't be done, lax can be.

MSM: Part of the problem is making the conditions under which to do it part of
the definition.

proposal: rework definition and the "if X then do lax assessment" rules to make
the separation.


RESOLUTION: For issue 5412, we will rework the definition of lax assessment to
make the separation between definition of the term vs. when lax should be
attempted.  Bug will get keyword "needsdrafting"
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2008 15:05:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:13:12 GMT