- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 30 Aug 2002 08:44:52 +0100
- To: Tom Moog <tmoog@sarvega.com>
- Cc: "'xmlschema-dev@w3.org'" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Tom Moog <tmoog@sarvega.com> writes: > Hello, > > Suppose one is validating an element P (parent) which is > xs:any with processContent="lax". > > Suppose P contains an immediate child C which itself > has an immediate child GC (grandchild). > > Suppose C is not recognized and cannot be validated. > Suppose GC is defined and can be validated. > > My reading of the spec is that under these circumstnaces > C should be validated against the ur-type. It is not clear > to me whether the laxness is applied recursively to GC. Since the ur-type's content model is made up of xs:any with PC lax, GC will be processed properly. > Under these circumstances should a validator attempt to > validate GC or should it skip validation of the contents of > C since it has no knowledge of the type of C ? The former. ht -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh W3C Fellow 1999--2002, 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/ [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Friday, 30 August 2002 03:44:55 UTC