RE: the meaning of lax

The language is surprisingly informal for a specification, especially for
the XSD specification, and I guess someone thought that would be helpful!

Case 1b means that the instance is invalid, as a consequence of the rule "if
there is a declaration, the instance MUST by valid with respect to it".

Actually, it's not the "don't worry" that I find difficult, it's the first
half of the sentence. It confuses "declaration" and "definition", for a
start. And what does "uniquely determined" mean - does it mean that if there
are two possible declarations, you don't validate? Where does xsi:type come
into it?

Perhaps the bottom line is that this section is really only telling you that
there are three values for {process contents} and giving you a very rough
idea of what they mean. The actual rules for validating an instance are in
3.10.4. Or at any rate, they should be. Now you mention it, I'm having
difficulty finding the relevant rule...

Michael Kay


> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tobias Koenig
> Sent: 21 January 2009 16:37
> To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
> Subject: the meaning of lax
> 
> 
> Hej,
> 
> in schema spec 1.1 'lax' is defined as
> 
> 	If the item has a uniquely determined declaration 
> available, it must be .valid. with respect to that definition,
>         that is, .validate. if you can, don't worry if you can't.
> 
> I don't know if it is just me as a non-native speaker, but 
> somehow that sentence confuses me...
> Let's say there is an element that matches a wildcard that 
> has processContents 'lax'.
> 
> 1) if I find a declaration for that element and
> 
> 	a) can validate it successfully -> everything ok
> 
> 	b) can not validate it successfully -> ?!?
> 
> 2) if I cannot find a declaration for that element
> 
> 	-> everything ok
> 
> What happens in case a 1b? Could the sentence in the spec 
> maybe rephrased?
> 
> Ciao,
> Tobias
>

Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 17:02:28 UTC