- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 21:38:29 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5077 ------- Comment #3 from xan.gregg@jmp.com 2008-01-01 21:38 ------- Thanks for the explanation. Now I see the note about full XPath being possible. I don't see any special instructions for what processors should do when they encounter unsupported XPath beyond the minimum. Presumably they must treat unrecognized XPath as an error in the schema. The example in question would be a good place for a reminder note about minimal XPath vs. full XPath.
Received on Tuesday, 1 January 2008 21:38:34 UTC