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

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


"[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.

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

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

- -- 
 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
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

Received on Thursday, 26 January 2006 12:44:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:56:09 UTC