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

RE: hexBinary type

• From: "Eran Balter" <E.Balter@F...>
• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 00:46:46 -0800

Hi,

Actually, I used the following tool http://validate.openlaboratory.net/, that claims to use Schema Validation by Xerces C++ (the tool seems popular, I got it as the third option when googling "W3C schema validation"). The output was:

	Validation results

	Checking first import/include references in schema files:
	b.xsd: OK
	b.xml: OK

	Running validation process '/usr/bin/DOMPrint'

	Errors detected:
	Error at file "b.xml", line 1, column 28
	   Message: Datatype error: Type:InvalidDatatypeValueException, Message:Value '0Fb8' is not in enumeration .

	Instance b.xml:
	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
	<hexBinary>0Fb8</hexBinary>

Thank you for your replies. 

Eran

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Glavassevich [mailto:mrglavas@c...] 
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 6:15 AM
To: xml-dev@l...
Subject: RE:  hexBinary type

... and it's the stance that Xerces-J takes too. Have no idea which
flavour/version of Xerces Eran is referring to but Apache Xerces-J 2.9.1
(and likely many of its predecessors) accepts this instance as it should.

Michael Glavassevich
XML Parser Development
IBM Toronto Lab
E-mail: mrglavas@c...
E-mail: mrglavas@a...

"Michael Kay" <mike@s...> wrote on 12/30/2007 05:27:19 PM:

> 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.
>
> Michael Kay
> http://www.saxonica.com/
>
> From: Eran Balter [mailto:E.Balter@F...]
> Sent: 30 December 2007 18:12
> To: xml-dev@l...
> Subject:  hexBinary type

> Hi,
>
> I am validating the following instance:
>
> <hexBinary>0Fb8</hexBinary>
>
> with the following schema:
>
> <xsd:schema xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
>         <xsd:element name="hexBinary">
>                 <xsd:simpleType>
>                         <xsd:restriction base="xsd:hexBinary">
>                                 <xsd:enumeration value="0FB8"/>
>                         </xsd:restriction>
>          </xsd:simpleType>
>         </xsd:element>
> </xsd: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 Lexical Representation (§3.2.15.1). Specifically,
> the lower case hexadecimal digits ([a-f]) are not allowed.?).
> libxml2 claims it?s valid, while xerces claims it?s not.
>
> TIA,
> Eran


_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@l...
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@l...
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php

• References:
  • RE: hexBinary type
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
  • RE: hexBinary type
    • From: Michael Glavassevich <mrglavas@c...>