- From: Wilson, Kirk D <Kirk.Wilson@ca.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:14:38 -0400
- To: <public-sml@w3.org>
+1 for Sandy's change. The more I thought about this the more I was seeing a "disconnect" between the validation initiation being strict-wildcard and the definition of document validity. Thanks for clarifying that issue, Sandy. However, I would still urge that last clause be stated with the clauses reversed. I'll add that to the bug. 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: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:59 PM To: public-sml@w3.org Subject: [Bug 5797] SML validity appeal to schema-validity is underspecified http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5797 --- Comment #5 from Sandy Gao <sandygao@ca.ibm.com> 2008-08-20 02:59:03 --- The first list (about processor conformance) already has "1. The validator MUST perform model validation as defined in this specification." So I didn't expect a new item to be added to that list. Instead, I expected to see changes in the last list (model validity) to reflect our "strict if bound, no validation otherwise" decision (see comment #2). e.g. change bullet 1 to: "1. In each instance document in the model, the [validity] property of the root element MUST be "valid", and the [validity] property of all the other elements and all the attributes MUST NOT be "invalid", when schema validity is assessed with respect to any schema that is bound to this instance document. The assessment starts at the root element with no stipulated declaration or definition. [XML Schema Structures]" -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 20 August 2008 11:16:13 UTC