- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 07:35:29 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23328 --- Comment #2 from Vitaliy <vitaliy.yudenkov@abrasoft.net> --- (In reply to Michael Kay from comment #1) > 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. Thank you for yours response. I understand the reason of why @validation and @default-validation could have different value. So "lax" or "strict" and not allowed values for @default-validation and processor signals XTSE0020 error. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 24 September 2013 07:35:32 UTC