> > I think the working group felt that > > introducing context-dependent validation (where the validity of a > > document depends on factors other than the schema and the instance > > document) was a risky architectural innovation, and possibly a step > > that would be later regretted. > > So they actually had no reason? Just some vague possibility. Actually, now I recall some of the discussion: one of the concerns was specifically the subject of this original question. Should the referenced document be schema-validated? If so, how do you prevent circularities, or infinite regress? Some members of the WG feel strongly that validation should never pose any denial-of-service risks, and allowing doc() opens up all sorts of possibilities. Potential problems like this can consume an immense amount of WG time, and when a spec is running years late already, there is a strong temptation for the chair to encourage people to cut a feature rather than spend time discussing whether or not it creates a problem. Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/Received on Friday, 1 May 2009 11:25:12 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 1 May 2009 11:25:12 GMT