W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > January 2006

SV: SV: any processContents strict

From: Bryan Rasmussen <brs@itst.dk>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 13:40:04 +0100
Message-ID: <D45A5694803BE943BA46F9A7262BF83D03246EFE@its42.itst.local>
To: "'ht@inf.ed.ac.uk'" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org


Hi,
Am I correct in assuming this to be the support for changing between
processing modes on the document element:

http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#cvc-assess-elt


"[Definition:]  If either case of clause 1 above holds, the element
information item has been strictly assessed.

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) (§3.3.4).
"

which seems to imply that one should only move to lax validation if the
rules for strict validation are not met. At any rate what I am wondering
about here is as follows another email of mine:

Quoting from email "xsd:any processContents lax, how does this affect an
application  level strict processing?"

"if I have xsd:any processContents lax at some point,
and I set my processor to do strict processing, the state of the document as
a whole at the end of the process - this is a document that has been
processed lax, so long as the subtree requiring lax validation has been
'instantiated' (I would prefer a better word in a markup context). Of course
I realize that the rest of the document has been processed strict, but what
I get out is a result that says no errors when processed lax, correct?"

I'm hoping my description of the situation is reasonable.

Cheers,
Bryan Rasmussen


-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk [mailto:ht@inf.ed.ac.uk]
Sendt: 26. januar 2006 10:43
Til: Bryan Rasmussen
Cc: 'Michael Kay'; xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Emne: Re: SV: any processContents strict


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bryan Rasmussen writes:

>>> If I send an instance to a validator and it encounters 
>>> content it does not
>>> understand it is up to the processor if it defaults to 
>>> validate strict, lax, skip....
>
>>I would have said it is up to the user, but the way the user tells the
>>processor what they want is implementation-defined.
>
> Yes, but I've had some processors default to lax instead of strict when I
> have not specified (whereas most seem to default to strict). IIRC XSV
> defaults to lax (however have not checked with the newest version I've
> installed which is probably still a couple versions behind) 

XSV starts at the document element in 'lax' mode, as it were, unless a
command line switch specifying a required element or type name is
given.

ht
- -- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.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]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFD2Jm9kjnJixAXWBoRAk7kAKCDOcjS7GhEitrjxyeafZhe7f8VqgCfYW/z
6IQu0QTSYK4MqfD/3Qz002M=
=Mhjh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2006 12:44:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:52 GMT