Re: XML Schema WG comments on Data Model

On Fri, 2004-06-04 at 11:56, Norman Walsh wrote:
> / "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org> was heard to say:
> [...]
> | 1.4. The implications of [validity] != valid
> |
> |     Section 3.6 para 2 reads in part: "The only information that can be
> |     inferred from an invalid or not known validity value is that the
> |     information item is well-formed."
> |     This is not true in the general case: the values of the properties
> |     [validity] and [validation attempted] interact, so that some
> |     inferences beyond well-formedness can be made. (If [validity] is
> |     'notKnown', for example, we can infer without examining the PSVI that
> |     [validation attempted] is not 'full'. If for some node N [validity] is
> |     'invalid', we can infer that declarations are available for at least
> |     some element or attribute information items in the subtree rooted in
> |     N.) The data model doesn't have to be interested in those inferences,
> |     but it is simply incorrect to say that they don't exist.
> |     On the whole, we believe that that the data model misses an
> |     opportunity by failing to exploit the information contained in the
> |     [validity] and [validation attempted] properties more fully.
> 
> The offending text "The only information ... is well-formed" has been
> redrafted in the following way in response to your comment. Please let
> us know if this is satisfactory.
> 
>   In the data model, precise schema type information is exposed for
>   Element and Attribute Nodes that are
>   <quote><emph>valid</emph></quote>. Nodes that are not
>   <quote><emph>valid</emph></quote> are treated as if they were simply
>   well-formed XML and only very general schema type information is
>   associated with them.

This will go onto the WG agenda the next time we deal
with inter-WG issues.

Speaking for myself, I think the change you show is a good
resolution of the issue (even though you didn't take up the
challenge to exploit the PSVI more fully).

Michael

Received on Friday, 4 June 2004 16:57:36 UTC