[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home]
[Reply To This Message]
RE: hexBinary type
- From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
- To: "'Eran Balter'" <E.Balter@F...>,<xml-dev@l...>
- Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:27:19 -0000
It's unusual for Xerces to be wrong on something so basic,
but I can't see any reason for rejecting this instance. The mapping from the
lexical space to the value space is only informally described, but it's fairly
clear to an intelligent reader that 0Fb8 and 0FB8 are different lexical
representations of the same actual value, and this makes the instance valid.
Certainly, that's the stance that Saxon takes.
I am validating the following instance:
with the following schema:
The instance has the small b while the enumeration
permits the capital B.
Is it a valid instance? (the standard claims: The canonical representation for
hexBinary is defined by prohibiting certain options from the http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028/datatypes.html#hexBinary-lexical-representation. Specifically, the lower case hexadecimal
digits ([a-f]) are not allowed.). libxml2 claims its valid, while xerces
claims its not.
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format
Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats,
enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.
Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website.
they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please