Re: R-117: pfianyTypeLax: Problem with processContents for the ur-type

Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> writes:

> Hi,
> 
> In the summary of the comments on the Recommendation, issue R-117 [1]
> says:
> 
> Description
> 
>   The REC does not specify what {process contents} is for the ur-type.
>   It should be specified as lax.
> 
>   See:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2002JanMar/0519.html
> 
> 
> Discussion
> 
>   Discussed at the May f2f. The WG discussed the possibility of making
>   processContents "skip". Henry Thompson to work on a proposal.
> 
> I don't know what stage you've got to with this, but I'm confused by
> the fact that in the description it says that the processContents
> should be 'lax' whereas in the discussion it says it should be 'skip'.
> 
> I think it would be much more useful it it were 'lax'. This would
> enable people to write schemas that focused on a few elements or
> attributes and validate source documents with those schemas. For
> example, it would be great to be able to validate a document against
> an XLink schema without necessarily having to have a schema for the
> entire document. With 'skip', any unrecognised element would mean that
> whole chunks of the document would be ignored.

The WG agrees with you, I believe, but the REC needs to change to make 
the ur-type really be the universal type, which requires 'skip'.  But
don't worry, what I've been asked to do is make such a type the root
of the type hierarchy, but keep processContents='lax' on the type
called anySimpleType, which would still be the default for untyped
elements, etc.  Details still being worked out . . .

ht

> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/05/xmlschema-rec-comments#pfianyTypeLax


-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
          W3C Fellow 1999--2002, part-time member of W3C Team
     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
		     URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]

Received on Monday, 16 September 2002 04:02:24 UTC