W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > May 2002

Re: XML Spy and complex type restriction

From: Ian Stokes-Rees <ijs@decisionsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 10:15:18 +0100
To: Matteo Garutti <m.garutti@cribisnetgroup.com>
Cc: "'xmlschema-dev@w3.org'" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20020529101515.D1161@decisionsoft.com>

Matteo,

I can confirm that your two schemas are just fine.  We have tested these
against the latest version of XercesJ and they have passed without
problem (just to be sure).  I would report this bug to Altova.

For simple schema/instance pairs you can make use of the DecisionSoft
XercesJ schema validator web site at:

http://tools.decisionsoft.com/

Regards,

Ian Stokes-Rees.

On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 04:18:31AM -0400, Matteo Garutti wrote:
> Hi !
> Let's take a look at the following example: we have a BaseLibrary
> schema in which we have defined a complex type named "BaseType" which
> is a simple extension of xs:string; in another schema,
> FinalSchema.xsd, we have defined 2 elements which derives by
> restriction from the "BaseType"; the first element "child_1" fixes the
> length to two chars, the second one "child_2" fixes the length to four
> chars. Eventually we created an XML document based on FinalSchema.xsd,
> and we set the content of "child_1" and "child_2" nodes according to
> their types as defined in the schema.  Then, we have tried to validate
> this XML document using 4 different XML engines and, unfortunately, we
> got different results:
> 
> (1) XML Spy 4.2               --> Ok, the document is valid
> (2) Microsoft .NET
>     ValidatingReader Object   --> Ok, the document is valid
> (3) XML Spy 4.3               --> Error, value  does not macth facet
>                                   length="4" in element dn:child_1
> (4) XML Spy 4.4               --> Error, value does not macth facet
>                                   length="4" in element dn:child_1
> 
> It seems that XML Spy (4.3 - 4.4) recognizes only the last restriction
> of the complex type "BaseType".  It's somewhat strange that XML Spy
> changed its behaviour in its two last releases, isn't it ?  Which is
> the right behaviour according to W3C standard ??  Thanks in advance
> for your support, bye

-- 
Ian Stokes-Rees, Client Services      DecisionSoft Ltd.
Telephone: +44-1865-203192            http://www.decisionsoft.com
Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2002 05:14:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:55:56 UTC