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

Re: Isn't maxExclusive too... exclusive ?

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 15 Oct 2001 14:52:26 +0100
To: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com>
Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5bvghh2ep1.fsf@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com> writes:

> "[Definition:]   maxExclusive is the ·exclusive upper bound· of the ·value
> space· for a datatype with the ·ordered· property. The value of maxExclusive
> ·must· be in the ·value space· of the ·base type·."
> 
> If I write:
> 
> <xs:simpleType name="foo">
>   <xs:restriction base="xs:float">
>    <xs:maxExclusive value="5"/>
>   </xs:restriction>
> </xs:simpleType>
> 
> Then
> 
> <xs:simpleType name="bar">
>   <xs:restriction base="foo">
>    <xs:maxExclusive value="5"/>
>   </xs:restriction>
> </xs:simpleType>
> 
> should be an error since "5" isn't in the value space of base datatype 
> "foo", but the comment about "fixed":
> 
> "If {fixed} is true, then types for which the current type is the {base 
> type definition} cannot specify a value for maxExclusive other than 
> {value}."
> 
> makes me think that this should be allowed at least when fixed="true"...

I think that's a bug in the case of max/minExclusive, you're right.  I 
think repeating 5 should be allowed in any case.

ht
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
          W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
		     URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
Received on Monday, 15 October 2001 09:51:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:24 GMT