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

Re: PSVI Question

• To: Navid <silencer2020@y...>
• Subject: Re: PSVI Question
• From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)
• Date: 22 Apr 2003 14:32:54 +0100
• Cc: XML-DEV <xml-dev@l...>, XML-SCHEMA-DEV <xmlschema-dev@w...>
• In-reply-to: <20030421215440.97007.qmail@w...>
• References: <20030421215440.97007.qmail@w...>
• Sender: ht@i...
• User-agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code)

Navid <silencer2020@y...> writes:

> Hello,
> 
> I had a PSVI question I was hoping someone could help
> me out with.  The [validation attempted] property for
> an attribute should be assigned a 'full' value if it's
>  strictly assessed and 'none' if it's not.
> 
> An attribute is NOT strictly assessed (according to
> 'Validation Rule: Schema-Validity Assessment
> (Attribute)') if one of clause 1 or 2 of 'Attribute
> Locally Valid (§3.2.4)' does NOT hold.  Clause 2 of
> 'Attribute Locally Valid (§3.2.4)' is:
> 
> 2) Its {type definition} must not be absent.
> 
> So according to the above my interpretation is that an
> attribute declaration such as <attribute name="att1"/>
> is NOT strictly assessed, since it has its type
> missing.  Thus, the [validation attempted] property
> should be 'none', but both Xerces and XSV output
> 'full'.  Did I misunderstand something here?

Just that the XML representation of a component, in this case an
attribute declaration, is not the cmoponent itself.  In this case the
mapping rules say that such a representation corresponds to an
attribute declaration with {type definition} set to xs:anySimpleType.
So the component _does_ have a type definition, and it will get used
at validation time, and so Xerces and XSV are correct.

ht
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                      Half-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]

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: PSVI Question
    • From: Navid <silencer2020@y...>

• References:
  • PSVI Question
    • From: Navid <silencer2020@y...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Could you take a look at my XMLSchema and/or XMLSpy problem please!!!
• Next by Date: Re: schema to require than an element have *no* text
• Previous by thread: PSVI Question
• Next by thread: Re: PSVI Question
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread