2741 2006-01-20 21:11:08 +0000 wd-13: Underspecification in fallback to lax processing 2006-10-11 02:15:22 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Structures: XSD Part 1 1.1 only PC Windows XP RESOLVED FIXED important, easy resolved P3 normal --- 1 holstege cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 7905 0 holstege 2006-01-20 21:11:08 +0000 s recently pointed out in an exchange between Sandy Gao and Henry Thompson on the IG list (under the subject heading "Validation rules for children of skipped elements"), the paragraph at the end of Schema-Validity Assessment (Element) is slightly underspecified. It says: If the item cannot be strictly assessed, because neither clause 1.1 nor clause 1.2 above are satisfied, [Definition:] an element information item's schema validity may be laxly assessed _if its context-determined declaration is not skip_ by validating with respect to the ur-type definition as per Element Locally Valid (Type) [emphasis added by HT] The spec does not say whether validation with respect to the ur-type definition is allowed if the item's context-determined declaration IS skip, or not. The spec also does not call out this and other implementation-dependent behaviors; it should. Request concerning Part 1 Schema-Validity Assessment (Element) laxly assesed Transition history raised on 28 Oct 2004 by C. M. Sperberg-McQueen (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/ Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2004OctDec/0012.html) accepted on 17 Dec 2004 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/ 2004Dec/0050.html) Background, proposals, threads, notes RESOLVED: Classify issue wd-13 as "accepted" _This_ issue stems from SG's challenge to prove that if have an element which matches a skip wildcard and it has a child that would be invalid against declaration, then I am not allowed to fallback to lax validation for children of skip wildcard. SG's point is the spec is underspecified and we need to make it clear: "you may do this under the following circumstances _and only_ under those circumstances" Suggest we should therefore "accept" this as an issue. agreed on 22 Apr 2005 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/ 2005Apr/0056.html) We have a resolution Action history Part 1 Editors accepted on 22 Apr 2005 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/ 2005Apr/0056.html) Structures editors to produce wording proposal for wd-13. 12384 1 cmsmcq 2006-10-11 02:15:22 +0000 On 18 February 2005, the Working Group approved a proposal (keyword: 'modals') which among other things changed the relevant conjunction from "if" to "if and only if". In the status-quo document, this paragraph now reads If the item cannot be strictly assessed, because neither clause 1.1 nor clause 1.2 above are satisfied, [Definition:] an element information item's schema validity must be laxly assessed if and only if its context-determined declaration is not skip by validating with respect to the ur-type definition as per Element Locally Valid (Type) (§3.3.4). (The change from 'may' to 'must' was a separate change, approved in August 2006 at the face to face meeting.) Accordingly, I'm not reclassifying this issue as 'resolved / fixed'. If either of the two original principals (Sandy Gao or Henry Thompson), or for that matter anyone else, believes this issue has been wrongly decided, they should re-open it. If SG or HST believe the decision resolves the original issue, they should change the status of the issue to 'closed'.