Well I think no matter which is right the spec at this point is unclear
(unless clarified at some other place in the spec in which case it is =
just
convoluted)

On the one hand it is obvious that what should be being processed laxly =
is
description, on the other hand it is somewhat a perverse use of an =
attribute
to say that an attribute on an element defines anything other than the
meaning of that element(given the definition of attribute in the xml =
spec)!
And if the attribute defines the meaning of any and any is bound to the
concept of an element Node (as I read the spec) I guess then .Net is =
right. 

So I could swerve between these two interpretations all day. It's enough =
to
make one take up a more Relax-NG method of validation. :)

Cheers,
Bryan Rasmussen

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Jeff Rafter [mailto:lists@j...]
Sendt: 9. oktober 2006 12:39
Til: Bryan Rasmussen
Cc: xmlschema-dev@w...
Emne: Re: SV: Any wildcard and the .NET validator?


I think that is an excellent assessment Bryan. I wonder which is right? 
It is interesting that every other validator I have tried passes the 
document. I haven't tried Saxon, and it seems my Altova is broken... 
must fix that...

Thanks!
Jeff

Bryan Rasmussen wrote:
> 
> I should probably note that I don't 100% agree with this reasoning, I
suppose
> that what should be processed laxly is the content of description, not =
any
> the sequence of elements under description. But I do think the =
reasoning
can
> be understood.
> 
> Cheers,
> Bryan Rasmussen
> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra: Bryan Rasmussen 
> Sendt: 9. oktober 2006 09:41
> Til: 'lists@j...'; xmlschema-dev@w...
> Emne: SV: Any wildcard and the .NET validator?
> 
> 
> Well, if "A wildcard provides for =B7validation=B7 of attribute and =
element
> information items dependent on their namespace name, but independently =
of
> their local name." (under wildcards
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#Wildcards ) Then I suppose the =
position
is
> that a text node is not allowable as an any. 
> 
> The position is then also I suppose that Description is the element =
that
uses
> DescriptionType, it is defined as having any number of elements in the
xhtml
> namespace and processing should be lax if you happen to run into an =
element
> in say the RDF namespace. But here they are running into a textnode =
under
> description, description is not processed laxly therefore Description
raises
> an error. 
> 
> 
> At any rate, this is what I figure they position is. 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Bryan Rasmussen
> 
> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra: xmlschema-dev-request@w...
> [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w...]P=E5 vegne af Jeff Rafter
> Sendt: 6. oktober 2006 21:01
> Til: xmlschema-dev@w...
> Emne: Any wildcard and the .NET validator?
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone here have information on the .NET XML Schema validator and =

> their position on lax validation of wildcards?
> 
> i.e.:
> 
>   <complexType name="DescriptionType" mixed="true">
>     <sequence>
>       <any minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"
>         namespace="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" =
processContents="lax"/>
>     </sequence>
>   </complexType>
> 
>     <description xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Blah 
> =
Blah<html:em>blah</html:em>.<html:br/>Blah<html:strong>blah</html:strong>=
 
> blah!</description>
> 
> Works in everything except the .NET tools (even MSXML passes the 
> document...).
> 
> Thanks,
> Jeff
> 
> 
> 


From lists@j... Mon Oct 09 10:52:38 2006
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41])
	by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
	id 1GWskQ-0000PR-IY
	for xmlsc