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

RE: Re: Language Theorie concerning XML Schema (heavy,at least

• To: "'Michael Kay'" <mike@s...>,"'Bob Foster'" <bob@o...>,"'Henry S. Thompson'" <ht@i...>
• Subject: RE: Re: Language Theorie concerning XML Schema (heavy,at least to me)
• From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
• Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:49:13 +0100
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to:
• Thread-index: AcVMd55DXOtJaHGmRDCnlSIPuImiswAHoNvAAABEqtA=

> it leaves it up to the implementor to decide which 
> references *are* needed for validation, and as far as I can 
> see, an implementation that needs *all" references is 
> conformant according to the letter.
> 

Just to add to this with a concrete example: if a content model refers to
element E, then a validator needs to know all the elements in the
substitution group of E. If there's an element Z in the schema whose
substitition group membership is a dangling reference, do you say "I don't
know whether element Z is in the substitution group of E, therefore I can't
validate", or do you assume that Z isn't in the substitution group of E.
Same applies to a complex type derived by extension from an unknown base
type. I'm pretty sure the spec doesn't give you the answer to this.

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/

• Prev by Date: RE: Re: Language Theorie concerning XML Schema (heavy,at least to me)
• Next by Date: [newbie][DBxml database: insertDocument]
• Previous by thread: Please help -- Xml errors during network transfer
• Next by thread: [newbie][DBxml database: insertDocument]
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread