- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:13:03 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13935 --- Comment #8 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> 2011-10-25 14:13:02 UTC --- The use case for allowing assertions to examine comments and PIs is that schemas are often there to protect applications from receiving data that they can't handle, which might include comments and PIs. For example, an application checking XML documents before they are put on a public web server might well want to check that the document does, or does not, contain an xml-stylesheet processing instruction. Equally, before sending a document to a phototypesetter you might want to check that it does or does not contain a processing instruction defining the page size. Another use case: comments and PIs can be used as a covert channel, or more likely, as a lazy way of adding information to a data flow without changing the schema. You might want a validation process to prevent this happening. So there are definitely cases for allowing it. I would say, if you want to strip comments and PIs before validating, that's fine. But in that case they should not be present either in the validated document (PSVI) or in the infoset presented for validation. Currently if the infoset contains comments and PIs, they will still be there in the PSVI, and if that's the case then I think they should be visible to assertions. -- 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 Tuesday, 25 October 2011 14:13:05 UTC