W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > January 2007

[Bug 4023] fn-abs-more-args-024 is incorrect

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:15:30 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1H6ApG-0001XP-Ui@wiggum.w3.org>


------- Comment #5 from mike@saxonica.com  2007-01-14 19:15 -------
The text for unsignedInt and similar types makes statements like ( 

unsignedInt has a lexical representation consisting of a finite-length sequence
of decimal digits (#x30-#x39). For example: 0, 1267896754, 100000

However, there is no pattern facet in the schema-for-schemas that enforces this
constraint. This is true in both the first and second editions of XML Schema

Given the clarification in the F+O spec that section 17.1.1 applies to this
cast, we have the statement "The semantics of casting are identical to XML
Schema validation", which means that if validating "+123" as an unsignedInt
fails, then casting it will also fail. So it becomes a question of which takes
precedence: the cited text in XML Schema Part 2 section, or the schema
for schemas.

If you follow the rules for validating an instance against a schema, you get to
Validation Rule: Datatype Valid in Schema Part 2 section 4.1.4, and this
invokes validation of the lexical representation against the pattern facet, but
not against any English text describing a built-in data type. On the other
hand, this interpretation would make no sense in the case of primitive data
types, because the English text describing the lexical form of (say) xs:float
is all we have, and it's clearly intended to be normative.

So I think this needs clarification from the Schema WG. Meanwhile, we can guess
what answer we might get if we note that XML Schema 1.1 explicitly permits
"+123" and "-0" in the lexical space of unsignedInt and similar types.
Received on Sunday, 14 January 2007 19:15:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:45:32 UTC