5294 2007-11-28 17:38:04 +0000 Add an explanation on why the smlif:dataType has processContents=skip 2007-12-13 19:23:38 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified SML Interchange Format LC PC Windows XP RESOLVED FIXED resolved P2 normal --- 1 popescu virginia.smith public-sml oldest_to_newest 17878 0 popescu 2007-11-28 17:38:04 +0000 As part of the resolution for defect http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4775, the processContents for the smlif:dataType has been changed from lax to skip. Since this change had some not so obvious reasons, I propose to have the spec explain this approach. Proposal : Add this comment to the sml-if.xsd schema, under the dataType type <xs:complexType name="dataType" mixed="false"> <xs:annotation> <xs:documentation> The wildcard with processContents "skip" matches the root element of the model document being packaged. The value of processContents is set to "skip" so that the contained element is not attempted for schema validation. As a result, validity of the packaged document will not affect validity of the IF document itself. </xs:documentation> </xs:annotation> <xs:sequence> <xs:any processContents="skip" minOccurs="0"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> 17941 1 virginia.smith 2007-12-03 21:46:29 +0000 Fix per proposal. 17945 2 virginia.smith 2007-12-03 22:20:11 +0000 The new schema reads as follows: -------- <xs:complexType name="dataType" mixed="false"> <xs:annotation> <xs:documentation> The wildcard with processContents "skip" matches the root element of the model document being packaged. The value of processContents is set to "skip" so that the contained element is not processed for schema validation. As a result, validity of the packaged document will not affect validity of the IF document itself. </xs:documentation> </xs:annotation> <xs:sequence> <xs:any processContents="skip" minOccurs="0" namespace="##any" maxOccurs="1"/> </xs:sequence> <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##other" processContents="lax"/> </xs:complexType> -------- Note the phrase "the contained element is not **processed** for schema validation". This is a change from the proposal. 17962 3 kumarp 2007-12-05 08:18:39 +0000 I agree with the change in comment# 2. 17965 4 sandygao 2007-12-05 14:29:31 +0000 I also agree with changes in comment #2. 17967 5 popescu 2007-12-05 14:36:56 +0000 +1 for change described in comment #2 18063 6 kirk.wilson 2007-12-13 16:26:38 +0000 +1 for change described in comment #2.