W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org > September 2008

Re: Another look at validate-with-xml-schema

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 15:03:05 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <m28wtc855i.fsf@nwalsh.com>
"Vasil Rangelov" <boen.robot@gmail.com> writes:

> 1. As far as I know, "lax" mode refers to validating the XML document
> against the schema declared inside of it if available, and assume valid if
> no such schema is declared. "strict" refers to validating the XML document
> against the schema declared inside of it and assume invalid if no such
> schema is declared. Shouldn't those two modes be clarified? If this is said
> elsewhere (say, the XML Schema spec), there should be a reference to the
> relevant section.

Strict and lax are validation options provided by XML Schema. A
cursory skim through the XML Schema spec didn't yield an obvious place
to point. Henry, can you suggest some clarifying text or a good place
to point into in the XML Schema spec?

> 2. Is the "schema" port required? If not, how does the processor behave when
> it's not present? Against the mode I suppose? This should be said
> explicitly.

The port is always required, but you can bind p:empty to it.

Perhaps we could clarify how the schema processor is expected to use the
schemas so passed (or not) and what other schemas it may use. Henry?

> 3. What exactly is the point of the assert-valid option? If assert-valid is
> "false" and the document turns out to be invalid, what should happen?
> Nothing?!? Why so?

You get a PSVI. Maybe you can make use of the PSVI for a partially
valid document, maybe you can't. If you can't, don't ask for it :-)

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Everything we love, no doubt, will pass
http://nwalsh.com/            | away, perhaps tomorrow, perhaps a
                              | thousand years hence. Neither it nor
                              | our love for it is any the less
                              | valuable for that reason.--John Passmore

Received on Sunday, 28 September 2008 19:03:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:41:08 UTC