Glenn Marcy wrote: > I believe that the original issues related to dynamic > validation being set and people wondering why nothing > happened. When we told them that they also needed to > set the validation feature they said that was dumb. > Of course, when they later turned off validation they > asked why we still were validating and we said that > they still had dynamic validation set, and again we > were told that was dumb.
I don't understand why Xerces1 required turning on both features (dynamic and validation)? The DOM L3, for example, defines that turning on dynamic validation automatically turns off validation feature and vice versa: turning on validation will disable dynamic validation [1]. In this case, user would not have to wonder what happens if you turn both on and then turn one of them off. Given that Xerces2 does not do what Xerces1 did, the users should have been broken for at least a year. However, we did not receive any bugs reports. Also we've received no replies to Sandy's posting about this problem, thus it seems that Xerces users do not care which way we are going. On top of it, our documentation claims that dynamic validation does not depend on the state of validation feature. So I fail to see how the change could possibly break anybody. Thus, I would be in favor changing the implementation according to the description of dynamic feature: if dynamic feature is set to true the document will be validated iff it has a grammar. While the state of dynamic feature is true, the state of validation feature is of no importance. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-DOM-Level-3-Core-20021022/core.html#DOMConfiguration -"validate-if-schema" Thanks, -- Elena Litani / IBM Toronto --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
