[Bug 4686] Use schema terminorlogies to describe "xml schema valid"


------- Comment #1 from popescu@ca.ibm.com  2007-08-28 16:34 -------
copied from the f2f IRC discussion :

<Jim> Bug 4686 Use schema terminorlogies to describe "xml schema valid" which
is not a defined term in the SML Schema spec.
*** pratul [c72bd072@] has joined #sml
<MSM> http://www.w3.org/XML/2001/06/validity-outcomes.html has an overview that
may be useful here.
<Jim> MSM differntiated between the notion of conformance in XML Schema 1.0 vs.
1.1 as follows:
<Jim> 1.0 does not define the term "conformance" for documents.
<Jim> 1.1 defines the "conformance" for SML Schema documents and Instnace
<MSM> no, not for instance documents.  Instance documents do not conform, or
fail to conform, to XSDL.
<Jim> John proposed that we agree at an abstract level what we mean by
"validity" to accomodate the second draft as it is to be reviewed by the SML
Schema WG.
<Jim> We can revisit as needed based on feedback from implementors.
<Jim> Kumar requested that a note be added to the spec to emphaize that this is
not a final definition.
<Sandy> <my:root xmlns:...>                         -- valid
<Sandy>   <my:ref sml:ref="true">                   -- valid
<Sandy>     <sml:uri>...</sml:uri>                  -- valid
<Sandy>     <some:element>                          -- notKnown
<Sandy>       <child xsi:type="xs:int>abc</child>   -- invalid
<Sandy>     </some:element>
<Sandy>   </my:ref>
<Sandy> </my:root>
<Jim> Sandy made three proposals:
<Jim> 1. That PSVI properties be exposed and available for use to the
<Jim> 2. That we define our criteria for the boolean value of validity.
<Jim> 3. That the notion of valid vs. invalid does not require any specific
behavior by the validator or the process that invokes it.

Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2007 16:34:44 UTC