- From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 20:19:58 +0100
- To: xmlschema-dev <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com> writes:
>>
>>I would expect an error (the "fake" element hasn't been defined)
>>rather than a success with a lax validation. Do I miss something?
>>
>
> The REC explicitly says that lax processing is an allowed processor
> strategy in the absence of a declaration for the root.
I should have guessed it, indeed since the rec is so crystal clear:
"laxly assessed:
an element information item's schema validity may be laxly assessed if
its ·context-determined declaration· is not skip by ·validating· with
respect to the ·ur-type definition· as per Element Locally Valid (Type)
(§3.3.4)"
Thanks,
Eric (suddenly feeling very, very tired)
--
See you in Orlando for XML 2001.
http://www.xmlconference.net/xmlusa/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
http://xsltunit.org http://4xt.org http://examplotron.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2001 14:19:58 UTC