This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 2187 - R-194: Question re: processContents=skip #2
Summary: R-194: Question re: processContents=skip #2
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Structures: XSD Part 1 (show other bugs)
Version: 1.0 only
Hardware: All All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: David Ezell
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: needsDrafting
: 1936 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-09-14 18:51 UTC by Sandy Gao
Modified: 2012-08-23 00:10 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Sandy Gao 2005-09-14 18:51:09 UTC
Suppose the instance contains: 

   <person>
      <salary>
         <base xsi:type='xs:integer'>Hello<base>
         <bonus>Hello<bonus>
      <salary>
   <person>

And the relevant parts of the schema are: 

    <xs:element name="person">
     <xs:complexType>
      <xs:sequence>
          <xs:any processContents="skip" maxOccurs='unbounded'/>
      <xs:sequence>
     <xs:complexType>
    <xs:element>
    <xs:element name="bonus" type="xs:integer"/>

In this case, "salary" matches the wildcard with "skip". Now, it's clear 
that "salary" is not assessed and no validation outcome is computed for it. I 
have always assumed that this means no processing of the children of such an 
element (such as "base" and "bonus" above), even if we can find declarations 
for them. I think this is implied by the definition of "skip" in Section 3.10.1 
The Wildcard Schema Component [1], as well as the last note in section 5.2 
Assessing Schema-Validity[2]. Is there anywhere else in the Rec this is spelled 
out more explicitly? 

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#Wildcard_details 

[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#validation_outcome
Comment 1 Sandy Gao 2005-09-14 18:51:20 UTC
Henry's response:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2002Nov/0291.html 

Resolution:
Discussed and classified at the May 13, 2003 telecon.
Comment 2 Sandy Gao 2005-10-04 21:00:58 UTC
*** Bug 1936 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***