W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > August 2002

Fwd: Re: Is this test case invalid (implicit derivation from ur-type / attribute wildcards)

From: Stefan Wachter <Stefan.Wachter@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 13:27:37 +0200 (MEST)
To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Message-ID: <18204.1029410857@www7.gmx.net>

Hi Jeni,
 
in the schema for schemas the anyType type is defined using an <xs:any
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> and <xs:anyAttribute/> element. The
default
value for the process contents type of wildcards is "strict". Therefore I
think the "strict" interpretation for the ur-type is correct, i.e. no
unknown
nested elements and attributes.
 
--Stefan
 
PS: I think that it would be "nicer" to have a "lax" ur-type but it is
strict!
 
 
> 
> > 
> > Hi Stefan,
> > 
> > > Yet the wildcard element and wildcard attributes of the ur-type have
> > > the process content type "strict", i.e. there may appear only
> > > elements and attributes inside that have a global declaration. This
> > > constraint is not satisfied in the test case because the nested
> > > elements have local declaration and there are no attribute
> > > declarations at all.
> > 
> > Yes, I wondered about that, but then I looked at the ur-type
> > definition in the spec at
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#ur-type-itself and as far as I can
> > see, it doesn't say what kind of processing model the wildcard and the
> > attribute wildcard have. Looking at the schema comments document, it
> > appears that it's intended to either have the processing model 'lax'
> > or 'skip'. See:
> > 
> >   http://www.w3.org/2001/05/xmlschema-rec-comments#pfianyTypeLax
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Jeni
> > 
> > ---
> > Jeni Tennison
> > http://www.jenitennison.com/
> > 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 15 August 2002 07:28:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:34 GMT