- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 17 Jan 2001 09:35:37 +0000
- To: Michael Anderson <michael@research.canon.com.au>
- Cc: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org, Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
Michael Anderson <michael@research.canon.com.au> writes: > > <snip/> > > Also, I guess it's true to say a schema can > > have errors that will not be addressed upon validation, but only upon > > validation of its instances? > > I don't believe it is true for your example. If the content model > of a schema is non-deterministic I believe this is an error, > regardless of whether your instance includes the offending ambiguous > information item, or not (as in your instance). Correct. As it happens, XSV is not conformant in this area, in that it doesn't build an FSM for a content model until it needs it, and it doesn't detect the violation until then. > Your statement can be true (IMO) with respect to other constraints, > such as missing schema sub-components. So let us say that your > above shema did not have the <any>. Now let us remove the > <simpleType name="HMACOutputLengthType"> and assume that the > processor has no way of finding this simpleType through other means. > Now, no errors will be found with this schema when you validate your > particular instance because you do not have an HMACOutputLength > information item. If you _did_have_ an HMACOutputLength information > item in your _instance_ then there would have been an error in your > _schema_ as it could not resolve the HMACOutputLengthType definition > that it was required to. This is a correct analysis. ht -- 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/
Received on Wednesday, 17 January 2001 04:35:40 UTC