Re: Major problem with schema needs immediate attention.

Hi Erik,

I think it is not lax.
I think it is strict except that type libs are imported in a way that 
makes them be applied in a lax way.

If you say lax validation, and you have a schema for a namespace that 
contains top-level element or attribute declarations, then undeclared 
elements in that namespace will not be flagged as errors because the mode 
is lax.  This is not desirable.

If the schema for a namespace contains top-level element or attribute 
declarations, then that structural validation should apply.  So if 
instance data contains elements in the namespace that are undeclared by 
the schema, then a validation error needs to occur.

We only want to switch to lax mode when the schema for a namespace 
contains no top-level element or attribute definitions since in this case 
one is guaranteed to always fail validation, but such a schema is useful 
for providing a type lib that declares no structures.

John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
STSM: Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher
Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com 

Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer





Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com> 
Sent by: public-forms-request@w3.org
10/31/2007 06:03 PM
Please respond to
ebruchez@orbeon.com


To
"Forms WG (new)" <public-forms@w3.org>
cc

Subject
Re: Major problem with schema needs immediate attention.







Klotz, Leigh wrote:
> OK, now you understand the problem and agree that we should not special 
> case xmlns="".
> If Erik agrees, then I think we're set on this part of the 
> decision (unless someone else who didn't speak during the call this 
> morning becomes interested).
> Leigh.

Ok great! I really didn't like this special case. So this should come 
down to saying that the validation mode is lax, right?

-Erik

-- 
Orbeon Forms - Web Forms for the Enterprise Done the Right Way
http://www.orbeon.com/