Hussein Shafie wrote: > Alex Milowski wrote: > ... > We have chosen to implement the following strategy: > > When an element is invalid, do not try to constrain the user trying to > fix this element, *because, in complex cases, trying to constrain the > user will almost certainly prevent him from fixing the problem*.
That's exactly what sometime ago I asked for (calling it 'repair mode'). > > Example: A must contain B or C+D. > > We have this invalid A: <A><B/><D/></A>. > > User1 wants to fix this by adding C first and then by removing B. > > User2 wants to remove B first and then to add C. > > User3 wants to remove D. But XXE doesn't allow: User4 wants to convert B into C Other transformations are also prohibitted. So the DTD/Schema conformance is only partially relaxed inside invalid elements. Wouldn't it be better (and simpler) to fully relax the conformance ? > ... Regards, -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Manuel Collado Machuca | Facultad de Informatica UPM Universidad Politecnica de Madrid | Campus de Montegancedo Dep. LSIIS | Boadilla del Monte Tel.+34-91-336.74.57 Fax.+34-91-336.74.12 | 28660 MADRID - SPAIN ------------------------------------------------------------------------
