- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 17 Sep 2002 11:48:47 +0100
- To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> writes: > 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"? Yes, sorry. > 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. Yes. ht -- 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 Tuesday, 17 September 2002 06:48:50 UTC