[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: (more details) embedding xml schema in an instance doc

• To: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
• Subject: Re: (more details) embedding xml schema in an instance doc
• From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)
• Date: 11 Jun 2002 22:19:41 +0100
• Cc: <peej@m...>, <xml-dev@l...>, <xmlschema-dev@w...>
• In-reply-to: <8BD7226E07DDFF49AF5EF4030ACE0B7E06621CC1@r...>
• References: <8BD7226E07DDFF49AF5EF4030ACE0B7E06621CC1@r...>
• User-agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.2(beta13) (Demeter)

"Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...> writes:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Henry S. Thompson [mailto:ht@c...] 
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 3:17 AM
> > To: Dare Obasanjo
> > Cc: peej@m...; xml-dev@l...; xmlschema-dev@w...
> > Subject: Re:  (more details) embedding xml schema in 
> > an instance doc
> > 
> > "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...> writes:
> > 
> > > The sForS is not a valid schema and thus should fail to validate.
> > 
> > I think it's time to stop saying this.  As Eddie noted, there 
> > is only one remaining issue (the use of whiteSpace in the 
> > definitions for the builtin primitives) and this is a 
> > contentious issue -- validators which enforce all and only 
> > the normative requirements now pass the sForS.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand this sentence so I'll ask again. Should
> restrictions of xs:anySimpleTYpe be allowed or not? I've heard
> conflicting answers to this question from various W3C XML Schema WG
> members and tend to agree with those that say it should be disallowed. 

I agree that the REC is less than clear here.  Given that the sForS is 
normative, and the injunction against deriving from anySimpleType is
non-normative, it makes sense to me to resolve the apparent
contradiction in favour of the usage in the sForS, as a majority of
implementations appear to have done.

I hope the WG can produce an erratum clarifying this quickly.

> Or are you saying that schema validators should special case the sForS? 

Not in my opinion, no.  If the WG clarifies the situation by making
what is currently non-normative normative, then the sForS will have to
be changed at the same time.  But, as I said, I favour the other
resolution (which would allow the sensible cases of derivation from
anySimpleType, i.e. those involving at _most_ the whiteSpace and
pattern faces.

ht
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
          W3C Fellow 1999--2002, part-time member of W3C Team
     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@c...
		     URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]

• References:
  • RE: (more details) embedding xml schema in an instance doc
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• Next by Date: Re: (more details) embedding xml schema in an instance doc
• Previous by thread: RE: (more details) embedding xml schema in an instance doc
• Next by thread: RE: (more details) embedding xml schema in an instance doc
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread