W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-encryption@w3.org > January 2002

Re: laxly schema valid?

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 16:50:31 -0500
Message-Id: <200201102150.QAA01477@tux.w3.org>
To: <hirsch@zolera.com>
Cc: xml-encryption@w3.org
This is a good point but my intent was that I could say "generate laxly 
schema valid" to mean that people can insert content in ANY elements even 
if there's no schema available for that content.

But we should bounce this by schema folks to see if its too awkward or 
confused...

On Thursday 10 January 2002 16:03, Frederick Hirsch wrote:
> Is it correct to say that "Laxly schema valid" means that if a validating
> XML parser is operating in "lax" mode
> it will schema validate what it can, but not validate that for which it
> can't find the schema?
>
> If that is true, then what does it mean to require an implementation to
> "generate" laxly schema valid XML?
> Shouldn't implementations generate schema valid XML, but receivers have
> the option to laxly validate?
>
> (This is in section 3.1, The EncryptedType)
>
>
> ---
> Frederick Hirsch
> Zolera Systems, http://www.zolera.com/
> Information Integrity, XML Security

-- 

Joseph Reagle Jr.                 http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/Signature/
W3C XML Encryption Chair          http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2002 16:50:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:02 UTC