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

Schema Test Collection Summary / Question

From: Stefan Wachter <Stefan.Wachter@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 21:52:38 +0200 (MEST)
To: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;xmlschema-dev@w3.org; (Henry S. Thompson);
Message-ID: <27292.1031687558@www63.gmx.net>

Hi all,

I worked through the schema test collection with the following result. Can
anyone confirm my result?

  - attP009: Required attribute must not be missing - even if there is a
fixed value. (There was already a lot of discusstion about this topic in the
xmlschema-dev list.)
  - attgA008, stA003: ID attributes have not to be unique with respect to
imported or included schema documents.

  - idc001.nogen.xsd, idc005.nogen.xsd, idc006.nogen.xsd: the default
namespace has no effect inside XPaths.
  - xsd001.xsd: New attributes must not be introduced in restrictions.
  - xsd003b.xsd: Unknown simple type "number".
  - xsd022.xsd: Missing base attribute in simple content restriction.

I am not sure about this last test case. Definition is as follows:

				<xsd:list itemType="abc"/>

This looks quite reasonable, but I think the base attribute is required

- Many tests for the float and double types are incorrect because the assume
a different scale/precision of floating point numbers then XML schema (or
Java) does.
- Many QName tests fail, because the prefixes are not registered with xmlns

Thanks for your attention,

> Glad you're making good progress, thanks for the report.
> You may want to look at the W3C XML Schema Test Collection [1] for more
> schemas and instances to test your software with.
> ht
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/05/xmlschema-test-collection/
> -- 
>   Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of
> Edinburgh
>           W3C Fellow 1999--2002, 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/
>  [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged
> spam]
Received on Tuesday, 10 September 2002 15:53:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:55:58 UTC