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

+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: [] On
Behalf Of
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:59 PM
Subject: [Bug 5797] SML validity appeal to schema-validity is

--- Comment #5 from Sandy Gao <>  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

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
no validation otherwise" decision (see comment #2). e.g. change bullet 1

"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
and all the attributes MUST NOT be "invalid", when schema validity is
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:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Wednesday, 20 August 2008 11:16:13 UTC