- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:51:02 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6168
--- Comment #2 from Sandy Gao <sandygao@ca.ibm.com> 2008-10-17 16:51:01 ---
Using "processContents" for the "not-in-schema" wildcard support was one
possibility the WG considered, because its interaction with global declarations
is like the opposite of "strict". The WG decided not to do it. We may be able
to recover the reasoning by fishing through the minutes.
One way to look at the interaction between {namespace constraint} and {process
contents} is that the former controls what to match, and the latter controls
what to do after the match. For "not-in-schema" wildcard, one could argue that
the test should fail at the "match" step, which makes {namespace constraint}
(hence notQName) a better choice.
Also note that "strict" = "can be validated (against a declaration or a type)"
!= "matches a global declaration". i.e. having an xsi:type would satisfy strict
(and lax), without a matching global element declaration.
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 17 October 2008 16:51:14 UTC