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

RE: Unanswered Questions

From: Ashok Malhotra <ashokma@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 09:58:25 -0700
Message-ID: <9D884881F5E1F24FB845967851720FC31D1A80@red-msg-12.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Ian Stokes-Rees" <ijs@decisionsoft.com>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Ian:
I will answer just one of your questions.
> The Primer seems to suggest that fractionDigits is an acceptable facet
> for many integer derived data types.  The SforS and Part 2: Datatypes
> support the conventional wisdom that integer style numbers can't have
a
> fractional part.

Section 3.3.13.3 Constraining facets of Part 2 says
integer has the following constraining facets: 
totalDigits 
fractionDigits ...

We take the position that derived types have all the facets of their
base types even if their value is fixed and cannot be changed.

All the best, Ashok 
===========================================================
Ashok Malhotra              <mailto: ashokma@microsoft.com> 
Microsoft Corporation
212 Hessian Hills Road
Croton-On-Hudson, NY 10520 USA 
Redmond: 425-703-9462                New York: 914-271-6477 



-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Stokes-Rees [mailto:ijs@decisionsoft.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 7:49 AM
To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Subject: Unanswered Questions

Over the last few weeks I have posted a number of questions which have
gone unanswered.  In hopes that the knowledgable people in this area
might be back from Holidays after their completion of the XSDL
Recommendation, I was hoping I could get some feedback.

************************************************************************

> > Assertion #4: One schema document may define a subset of at most one
> > namespace. (that subset may be the entire namespace, or may be no
> > namespace, in the case of "null namespace" schema documents).
> 
> Yes, although your choice of words is odd.  A schema only addresses
> the syntax of elements and attributes in a namespace, there are lots
> of other things that might be defined about a namespace.

I have been reflecting on this comment with respect to the
"form" attribute.  Is it true that anything with
form="unqualified" (whether from an explicit form attribute or
inherrited from the xxxxxFormDefault attribute on the schema element)
is
being defined into the null namespace rather than into the target
namespace of the schema?

If this is the case, then is it correct to say that a single schema
document may define elements and attributes into the null namespace,
the
target namespace of the schema document, or both?

Finally, for globally declared elements and attributes there is no
concept
of "form" since they can only be defined into the target namespace,
although that target namespace may be the null namespace.  Similarly,
globally declared types and groups can only ever be defined into the
target namespace.

************************************************************************

The Primer seems to suggest that fractionDigits is an acceptable facet
for
many integer derived data types.  The SforS and Part 2: Datatypes
support
the conventional wisdom that integer style numbers can't have a
fractional
part.

************************************************************************

Is it legal XSDL to define an infinitely recursive structure?  For
example (in XSDL shorthand):

<element name="foo" type="bar" />
<complexType name="bar">
  <element name="foo" type="bar" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"/>
</complexType>

I can imagine this would be fine if minOccurs="0" because it could
conceivably terminate, however with minOccurs="1" an instance document
with a "foo" element in it would be infinite and impossible to
generate.

************************************************************************


-- 
Ian Stokes-Rees                       DecisionSoft Ltd.
Telephone: +44-1865-203192            http://www.decisionsoft.com
Received on Thursday, 10 May 2001 15:49:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:20 GMT