W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > August 2001

RE: Ambiguous values.

From: Ashok Malhotra <ashokma@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 08:22:26 -0700
Message-ID: <E5B814702B65CB4DA51644580E4853FB8D4F12@red-msg-12.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Kevin Yancey" <kevinyancey@hotmail.com>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Kevin:

Try to validate the value against the types contained in the union in
the order that they

are specified in the union.  Declare victory with the first type that
the value validates with.

All the best, Ashok 
=========================================================== 
Ashok Malhotra              <mailto: ashokma@microsoft.com
<mailto:%20ashokma@microsoft.com> > 
Microsoft Corporation 
 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Yancey [mailto:kevinyancey@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 9:12 AM
To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Subject: Ambiguous values.

 

I've been working on writing a schema parser and ran into a problem that
doesn't seem to have been

addressed in the XML Schema specification documents.  There are certain
situations in parsing an XML

Schema (or any XML document for that matter) where the meaning of a
lexical value in an XML Schema 

would be ambiguous.  To illistrate what I mean, I'll give an example:

 

Say that a given schema defines a simple type called "unionType" that
unions the built-in types "decimal" 

and "string" (the usefullness of such a type may seem insignificant, but
nothing I see in the specification 

prohibits it).  Then, lets say that an attribute declared in the schema
has unionType as its type and also has 

a fixed value defined for it of "22".  The value "22" could mean the
string "22" or the number 22.  The difference 

between the two becomes relevant if this attribute declaration is
applied to an attribute with a value of "+22".  

"+22" is the same as "22" numerically, but not the same as a string.
Therefore, the attribute could be valid 

with respect to the schema, depending on how the schema's ambigous value
is interpreted.

 

One resolution to this problem might be to simply disallow unions whose
members have overlapping lexical

spaces.  This is easy when dealing with simple types such as string and
decimal, but if the member types

we derived from them, it would be difficult to impossible to detect with
certainty such union types with all

the facets there are to take into account.

 

For validation purposes, the distinction between values in the document
being validated becomes mute, since

"48" is still a valid decimal value, whether the writer of the doucment
meant the string "48".  The validator only

cares if the given lexical value is valid for the specified type.  The
distinction becomes critical, however, when

interpreting the schema itself, for reasons given in the example above.
Similar problems arise with the use of

the enumeration facet as well.

 

So, in a nut shell, my question is, how is an schema parser to tell the
difference between values when

encountering ambiguous values such as is the case in the example above?

 

Any comments are welcome,

    Thanks,

 

    Kevin P. Yancey

    Balance Wheel Technologies Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2001 11:23:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:23 GMT