- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 19 Nov 2002 19:13:13 +0000
- To: Bob Schloss <rschloss@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "'xmlschema-dev@w3.org'" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
I think you've identified a bug in Noah's solution.
The processContents attribute of wildcards is not inherited. So
given
<parent>
<var>
<x>123</x>
<w><a/></w>
<z/>
</var>
<parent>
and writing
<xs:element name="parent">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:sequence>
<xs:any processContents="strict"/>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
in its schema, we would have a requirement that a declaration for the
_var_ element be available. There's no way to make that requirement
inherited.
So what you actually want is
<xs:element name="parent">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:sequence>
<xs:any processContents="lax"/>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<xs:element name="x" type="..."/>
<xs:element name="y" type="..."/>
<xs:element name="z" type="..."/>
By using 'lax' you avoid the (undesirable for your example)
requirement for a declaration for 'var', but because lax validation
_is_ recursive, and declarations for x, y and z _are_ present,
requires that they conform to those declarations.
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 Tuesday, 19 November 2002 14:13:15 UTC