Hello,

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

Your example with the =93strict=94 option and importing schema does help =
understand, so I think I got the motivation for the =93strict=94 option.

 

I don=92t seem to understand the exceptions that you mention with =
regards to xsi:type. Can you please explain, or better yet, point me to =
the relevant text in the standard?

 

Thanks again.

 

Shlomo.

 

________________________________

From: dmaze@u... [mailto:dmaze@u...] 
Sent: =E2 06 =EE=F8=F5 2007 22:58
To: Shlomo Yona
Cc: xmlschema-dev@w...
Subject: Re: xsd:any validation for elements

 


xmlschema-dev-request@w... wrote on 03/06/2007 10:56:09 AM:

> I=92m not sure that I=92m clear about the parsing instructions for 
> xsd:any. Your help in interpretation of the standard is most =
appreciated: 
>   
> The =93skip=94 parser instruction in xsd:any says (I think) =96 only 
> perform well formedness and namespace checks but don=92t try to 
> validate element names and types. 

This isn't quite true.  If the content contains an xsi:type attribute, =
then in all cases the element will be validated against that type.  In =
the "skip" case it's not checked against an element declaration.  But =
otherwise, in the absence of xsi:type, yes, this passes everything =
through without validation. 

> The =93lax=94 parser instruction in xsd:any says (I think) =96 same as =

> skip but if you encounter an element name that is defined in your 
> schema, then validate it against the schema. 
> The =93strict=94 says (I think) =96 same as =93lax=94 but if you =
don=92t know 
> the element name =96 it is a validation error. 

Again, xsi:type matters here: even against a strict wildcard, an element =
without a corresponding global element declaration can still be =
considered valid if it has a valid xsi:type attribute, and the element =
is valid as per the type it declares. 

> The following things make me think that I misinterpret the standard =
correctly: 
> Why use =93strict=94? you might as well not defined your content group =
as xsd:any. 

It's much easier to specify one xs:any in your schema than a choice of =
dozens (or more!) specific named elements.  If you're importing things =
from other namespaces, you might not even know off hand what all of the =
potential options are.  And if you add global element declarations (or =
if a schema you import adds them) then a strict xs:any will =
automatically pick those up. 

> The =93lax=94 confuses me because I=92m not sure if when I encounter =
<a> I
> should make sure that all its child elements and attributes conform 
> with the schema or just <a> itself with its attributes 

There's no way in XML Schema to cause the validator to look at an =
element's attributes but ignore the content model in the same complex =
type (excepting an xsi:nil in the instance document).  I read the spec =
as requiring a validator to try to validate an element against (1) a =
matching global element declaration, (2) an xsi:type attribute, or =
failing those (3) the same way as a skip wildcard. 

David Maze
Engineer, IBM WebSphere DataPower SOA Appliances
One Rogers Street, Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-693-1306  Fax: 617-693-5541