- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 10:19:59 +0100
- To: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson)
- CC: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Hi Henry, >> 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 . . . Presumably you don't mean "anySimpleType", but rather "anyType"? In other words, you're saying that the ur-type definition, at the top of the type hierarchy, will have skip validation, but the type definition used by default for elements that have no declared type will have lax validation. Sounds good. Cheers, Jeni --- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com/
Received on Monday, 16 September 2002 05:20:05 UTC