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

SV: SV: Any wildcard and the .NET validator?

From: Bryan Rasmussen <BRS@itst.dk>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 12:50:20 +0200
Message-ID: <A2DF252098C9AD4B9781453BE4C5422B0129B361@excw2k301.koncern.local>
To: <lists@jeffrafter.com>
Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>

Well I think no matter which is right the spec at this point is unclear
(unless clarified at some other place in the spec in which case it is just
convoluted)

On the one hand it is obvious that what should be being processed laxly is
description, on the other hand it is somewhat a perverse use of an attribute
to say that an attribute on an element defines anything other than the
meaning of that element(given the definition of attribute in the xml spec)!
And if the attribute defines the meaning of any and any is bound to the
concept of an element Node (as I read the spec) I guess then .Net is right. 

So I could swerve between these two interpretations all day. It's enough to
make one take up a more Relax-NG method of validation. :)

Cheers,
Bryan Rasmussen

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Jeff Rafter [mailto:lists@jeffrafter.com]
Sendt: 9. oktober 2006 12:39
Til: Bryan Rasmussen
Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Emne: Re: SV: Any wildcard and the .NET validator?


I think that is an excellent assessment Bryan. I wonder which is right? 
It is interesting that every other validator I have tried passes the 
document. I haven't tried Saxon, and it seems my Altova is broken... 
must fix that...

Thanks!
Jeff

Bryan Rasmussen wrote:
> 
> I should probably note that I don't 100% agree with this reasoning, I
suppose
> that what should be processed laxly is the content of description, not any
> the sequence of elements under description. But I do think the reasoning
can
> be understood.
> 
> Cheers,
> Bryan Rasmussen
> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra: Bryan Rasmussen 
> Sendt: 9. oktober 2006 09:41
> Til: 'lists@jeffrafter.com'; xmlschema-dev@w3.org
> Emne: SV: Any wildcard and the .NET validator?
> 
> 
> Well, if "A wildcard provides for ·validation· of attribute and element
> information items dependent on their namespace name, but independently of
> their local name." (under wildcards
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#Wildcards ) Then I suppose the position
is
> that a text node is not allowable as an any. 
> 
> The position is then also I suppose that Description is the element that
uses
> DescriptionType, it is defined as having any number of elements in the
xhtml
> namespace and processing should be lax if you happen to run into an element
> in say the RDF namespace. But here they are running into a textnode under
> description, description is not processed laxly therefore Description
raises
> an error. 
> 
> 
> At any rate, this is what I figure they position is. 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Bryan Rasmussen
> 
> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org
> [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org]På vegne af Jeff Rafter
> Sendt: 6. oktober 2006 21:01
> Til: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
> Emne: Any wildcard and the .NET validator?
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone here have information on the .NET XML Schema validator and 
> their position on lax validation of wildcards?
> 
> i.e.:
> 
>   <complexType name="DescriptionType" mixed="true">
>     <sequence>
>       <any minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"
>         namespace="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" processContents="lax"/>
>     </sequence>
>   </complexType>
> 
>     <description xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Blah 
> Blah<html:em>blah</html:em>.<html:br/>Blah<html:strong>blah</html:strong> 
> blah!</description>
> 
> Works in everything except the .NET tools (even MSXML passes the 
> document...).
> 
> Thanks,
> Jeff
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 9 October 2006 10:52:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:55 GMT