- From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:10:41 -0600
- To: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
- Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>, <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "'Pete Cordell'" <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
On 21 Mar 2007, at 17:10 , Michael Kay wrote: > >> There are already a number of constructs >> that have the same closed world feel. > > That's true: for example lax validation, and redefines. They're all > a bit > problematic, because you can't inspect a schema document and an > instance and > know whether the instance is valid without knowing somethng else > about the > validation environment. However, I don't think there are currently > any cases > where an element E that conforms to a declaration D causes the > instance to > be valid when D is absent from the schema but invalid when it is > present. > Intuitively, this seems a little weird. Hear, hear! I think this argument is spot on. But it's fair to say that the WG did not make its decision to adopt the not-in-schema wildcard without having heard this argument. It's just that it was only a minority in the WG who thought that a document should not become invalid because you learn that one of its elements is valid. --CMSMcQ
Received on Thursday, 22 March 2007 00:10:54 UTC