- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 11:04:12 -0500
- To: <hirsch@zolera.com>
- Cc: <xml-encryption@w3.org>
On Thursday 10 January 2002 16:03, Frederick Hirsch wrote: > Is it correct to say that "Laxly schema valid" means that if a validating > XML parser is operating in "lax" mode Henry's response, I've tweaked the text a bit in 1.102 . -- Re: Fwd: laxly schema valid? Date: 11 Jan 2002 10:21:54 +0000 From: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) To: reagle@w3.org Cc: henry@w3.org, w3t-arch@w3.org Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org> writes: > This is a good point but my intent was that I could say "generate laxly > schema valid" to mean that people can insert content in ANY elements even > if there's no schema available for that content. Your intent is certainly fine. A longer way of saying it would be "generate instances which are schema-valid by exploiting the lax wildcard in the content model". Ah, now I look at the full context, and would suggest Implementation MUST generate schema-valid [XML-schema] EncryptedData or EncryptedKey instances as specified by the subsequent schema declarations (note these may contain non-schema-validated elements because of the lax wildcards therein) and SHOULD . . . Note however that as far as I can tell there actually _aren't_ any wildcards in the EncryptedData or EncryptedKey type definitions in the most recent draft [1] ??? ht [1] http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/Drafts/xmlenc-core/Overview.html#sec-EncryptedType -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh W3C Fellow 1999--2001, 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/ -- Joseph Reagle Jr. http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/ W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/Signature/ W3C XML Encryption Chair http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Friday, 11 January 2002 11:04:28 UTC