[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Schema Sanity Check

• To: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
• Subject: Re: Schema Sanity Check
• From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@j...>
• Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 19:56:43 +0100
• Cc: "Steven Livingstone" <s.livingstone@b...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <8BD7226E07DDFF49AF5EF4030ACE0B7E06621F92@r...>
• Organization: Jeni Tennison Consulting Ltd
• References: <8BD7226E07DDFF49AF5EF4030ACE0B7E06621F92@r...>
• Reply-to: Jeni Tennison <jeni@j...>

Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> Looking at the complex type definition for the ur-type[0] we note
> that its {content type} has a particle whose {term} is a sequence
> whose {particles} contains a single {term} which is wildcard with
> namespace constraint set to any.
>
> In short, the content of a complex type of type xs:anyType is
> anything from any namespace. However, the default value of
> processContents[1] for a wildcard is strict meaning that a schema
> must be provided for each of the elements [or attributes] that
> appear in the content model.
 
There's probably going to be an erratum on this, to explicitly say
that the processContents of the xs:any and xs:anyAttribute wildcards
in the xs:anyType complex type are either *lax* or *skip*. See:

  http://www.w3.org/2001/05/xmlschema-rec-comments#pfianyTypeLax

Cheers,

Jeni

---
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com/

• References:
  • RE: Schema Sanity Check
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Schema Sanity Check
• Next by Date: Re: A multi-step approach on defining object-oriented nature
• Previous by thread: RE: Schema Sanity Check
• Next by thread: RE: Schema Sanity Check
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread