RE: [Bug 5797] SML validity appeal to schema-validity is underspecified

Is the note on this accurate?

The method has two parts: (1) strict processing of an identified element
or element of a specified type.
	(2) refusal to validate a non-identified element.

Is (2) part of strict-wildcard validation?  (I thought only (1) was.
But the note would imply that both (1) and (2) are part of what is meant
by strict-wildcard validation.

Kirk Wilson, Ph.D.
Research Staff Member, CA Labs
603 823-7146 (preferred)
Cell:  603 991-8873
This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, please
delete this e-mail and notify the sender immediately.

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 10:55 PM
Subject: [Bug 5797] SML validity appeal to schema-validity is

Kumar Pandit <> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
           Keywords|editorial                   |

--- Comment #4 from Kumar Pandit <>  2008-08-19
02:55:14 ---
Added item 8 in the first item-list under section 8 Conformance. 

8. The processor MUST start Schema-Validity Assessment at the document
element with no stipulated declaration or definition. If the document
element and the schema determine an element declaration (by the name of
element) or a type definition (via xsi:type), then strict validation is
performed; if they do not identify any declaration or definition, then
schema-validity assessment is performed.


This method is generally known as strict-wildcard validation.

Schema-Validity Assessment =>
strict validation =>

Configure bugmail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2008 16:27:27 UTC