- 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