- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 17:28:01 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23328 --- Comment #1 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> --- I think the decision not to allow "lax" or "strict" as valid values for default-validation was paternalistic; they aren't allowed because they would not very often be useful. They could also impose an excessive performance overhead if the processor doesn't find a way to avoid validating elements at every level of the tree. It's quite hard to optimize away the redundant validation in the general case, so I'm inclined to stick with the status quo. As for the current text, saying Therefore, such a processor must treat any [xsl:]validation or default-validation attribute with a value of preserve or lax as if the value were strip. is probably a bit careless and should change to Therefore, such a processor must treat any [xsl:]validation attribute with a value of preserve or lax, or any default-validation attribute with a value of preserve, as if the value were strip. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 23 September 2013 17:28:02 UTC