W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xsd-databinding@w3.org > June 2007

RE: Comments on test cases

From: George Cowe <gcowe@origoservices.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 08:37:46 +0100
Message-ID: <C8F37DF83438E545AFA2A1682340BD4425AC40@ORIGO_MAIL.origoservices.local>
To: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>
Cc: <public-xsd-databinding@w3.org>

Thanks for the comments Pete. 

I'll attempt to give an answer to each of your points -

Our examples are taken from XML Schema Part 2 Datatypes http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#float
where it states that 
"For example, -1E4, 1267.43233E12, 12.78e-2, 12 , -0, 0 and INF are all legal literals for float."
So we would expect data binding tools to support these values.

I don't think we have a globalStringAttribute schema so I'm not sure about the issue you mention regarding this - can you point me to the particular page? All our examples are based on this master file http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/edcopy/patterns/examples.xml

Yes - well spotted, this should actually have a namespace prefix specified - we will correct this.

It looks like the example has already been corrected. The value is wrapped in a <text> element now. 

Soap and wsdl namespace prefixes.
All our instances are generated from the examples.xml http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/examples/6/09/examples.xml
As you will see this contains all the namespaces which make their way into the instances via a series of transformations http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/edcopy/patterns/
We just haven't got round to optimizing these yet.

Once again thanks for your comments and keep them coming!


-----Original Message-----
From: public-xsd-databinding-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xsd-databinding-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Pete Cordell
Sent: 08 June 2007 12:12
To: public-xsd-databinding@w3.org
Subject: Comments on test cases

I've been working through the various test cases.  I still have to resolve 
some issues (such as handling xs:include in the tests etc.), but I thought 
I'd report back some things I have found.

As our tool is very much a schema tool, I'm using the .xsd files rather than 
the .wsdl files, or the various echo*.* files.

Firstly, I'm impressed by how much work you have done.

- In floatElement and the various float tests, the default and enumerated 
values actually have more decimal digits than can be captured by a single 
precision value.  This makes round tripping difficult.  For example, when 
1267.43233E12 is input, our tool outputs 1.267432e+15 (7 digits of 
precision, which I believe if right for a single precision floating point 
number - 23 bits?).

Some of the problem here is that our XML comparison tool is not schema 
aware.  So it looks at the two values, sees they're not lexically identical, 
and then says "well, maybe they're floating point numbers".  The trouble is, 
our comparison tool, being C++, converts both numbers to doubles, at which 
precision the two numbers are different.

Obviously if you have a better comparison tool you can get around this.  But 
I still feel if you are testing single precision floating point values, 
you're literals should be exactly representable at that precision.

- In the globalStringAttribute schema I believe the reference to the global 
attribute needs a namespace prefix (e.g. ref="ex:...").

I'm not sure if these instances are supposed to be wrong but...

- The QualifiedLocalElements01.xml instance looks wrong to me.  Needs to be 
<ex:qualifiedLocalElements ... unless the instance meant to define a default 

- ElementDefault-ElementDefault04.xml looks wrong.  'anotherValue' can not 
appear without being wrapped in <text> tags.

- For the non-SOAP XML instances there are a lot of redundant soap and wsdl 
namespace prefixes set up.  I assume these are as a result of generating the 
instances from some master input.  It's not a big issue, but if they weren't 
present it would look prettier!

That's all for now.  I may have more later.



P.S. Our company name has changed, hence the different sig
Pete Cordell
Codalogic Ltd
for XML Schema to C++ data binding visit

E-mail disclaimer

The information in this e-mail is sent in confidence for the addressee only and may be legally privileged. Unauthorised recipients must preserve this confidentiality and should please advise the sender immediately of the error in transmission and then delete this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in reliance on its content is prohibited and may be unlawful.

Origo Services Limited accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage resulting directly or indirectly from the use of this e-mail or the contents.  It is your responsibility to scan for viruses.  Origo Services Limited reserves the right to monitor e-mails sent to or from addresses under its control.  When you reply to this e-mail, you are consenting to Origo Services Limited monitoring the content of the e-mails you send to or receive from Origo Services Limited.  If this e-mail is non-business related Origo Services Limited is not liable for any opinions expressed by the sender.  The contents of this e-mail are protected by copyright.  All rights reserved.

Origo Services Limited is a company incorporated in Scotland (company number 115061) having its registered office at 4th floor, Saltire Court, 20 Castle Terrace, Edinburgh EH1 2EN.
Received on Friday, 15 June 2007 07:37:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:13 UTC