W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > March 2007

RE: xsd:any validation for elements

From: Shlomo Yona <S.Yona@F5.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 20:30:25 -0800
Message-ID: <B546C312A37C12438A22154026CDC7E011E326E1@exchfive.olympus.f5net.com>
To: <dmaze@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Hello,

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

Your example with the “strict” option and importing schema does help understand, so I think I got the motivation for the “strict” option.

 

I don’t seem to understand the exceptions that you mention with regards to xsi:type. Can you please explain, or better yet, point me to the relevant text in the standard?

 

Thanks again.

 

Shlomo.

 

________________________________

From: dmaze@us.ibm.com [mailto:dmaze@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: â 06 îøõ 2007 22:58
To: Shlomo Yona
Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Subject: Re: xsd:any validation for elements

 


xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org wrote on 03/06/2007 10:56:09 AM:

> I’m not sure that I’m clear about the parsing instructions for 
> xsd:any. Your help in interpretation of the standard is most appreciated: 
>   
> The “skip” parser instruction in xsd:any says (I think) – only 
> perform well formedness and namespace checks but don’t try to 
> validate element names and types. 

This isn't quite true.  If the content contains an xsi:type attribute, then in all cases the element will be validated against that type.  In the "skip" case it's not checked against an element declaration.  But otherwise, in the absence of xsi:type, yes, this passes everything through without validation. 

> The “lax” parser instruction in xsd:any says (I think) – same as 
> skip but if you encounter an element name that is defined in your 
> schema, then validate it against the schema. 
> The “strict” says (I think) – same as “lax” but if you don’t know 
> the element name – it is a validation error. 

Again, xsi:type matters here: even against a strict wildcard, an element without a corresponding global element declaration can still be considered valid if it has a valid xsi:type attribute, and the element is valid as per the type it declares. 

> The following things make me think that I misinterpret the standard correctly: 
> Why use “strict”? you might as well not defined your content group as xsd:any. 

It's much easier to specify one xs:any in your schema than a choice of dozens (or more!) specific named elements.  If you're importing things from other namespaces, you might not even know off hand what all of the potential options are.  And if you add global element declarations (or if a schema you import adds them) then a strict xs:any will automatically pick those up. 

> The “lax” confuses me because I’m not sure if when I encounter <a> I
> should make sure that all its child elements and attributes conform 
> with the schema or just <a> itself with its attributes 

There's no way in XML Schema to cause the validator to look at an element's attributes but ignore the content model in the same complex type (excepting an xsi:nil in the instance document).  I read the spec as requiring a validator to try to validate an element against (1) a matching global element declaration, (2) an xsi:type attribute, or failing those (3) the same way as a skip wildcard. 

David Maze
Engineer, IBM WebSphere DataPower SOA Appliances
One Rogers Street, Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-693-1306  Fax: 617-693-5541
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2007 04:30:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:56:12 UTC