Re: Schema Test Collection Summary / Question

Thanks Jeni.

> Hi Stefan,
> 
> > I worked through the schema test collection with the following
> > result. Can anyone confirm my result?
> >
> > msxsdtest:
> >   - 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.)
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> >   - attgA008, stA003: ID attributes have not to be unique with
> > respect to imported or included schema documents.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> > suntest:
> >   - idc001.nogen.xsd, idc005.nogen.xsd, idc006.nogen.xsd: the default
> > namespace has no effect inside XPaths.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> >   - xsd001.xsd: New attributes must not be introduced in restrictions.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> >   - xsd003b.xsd: Unknown simple type "number".
> 
> Agreed. (It's probably a hangover from when xs:decimal was xsd:number
> in the Proposed Recommendation dated 16 March 2001.)
> 
> >   - xsd022.xsd: Missing base attribute in simple content restriction.
> >
> > I am not sure about this last test case. Definition is as follows:
> >
> > <xsd:complexType>
> >         <xsd:simpleContent>
> >                 <xsd:restriction>
> >                         <xsd:simpleType>
> >                                 <xsd:list itemType="abc"/>
> >                         </xsd:simpleType>
> >                 </xsd:restriction>
> >         </xsd:simpleContent>
> > </xsd:complexType>
> >
> > This looks quite reasonable, but I think the base attribute is
> > required here.
> 
> I agree. The base attribute is shown as required on the definition of
> the xs:restriction element within the xs:simpleContent element both
> within the Rec and in the schema for schema. A xs:restriction within a
> xs:simpleContent element is of type xs:simpleRestrictionType:
> 
> <xs:element name="simpleContent" id="simpleContent">
>  <xs:annotation>
>   <xs:documentation
> source="http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#element-simpleContent"/>
>  </xs:annotation>
>  <xs:complexType>
>   <xs:complexContent>
>    <xs:extension base="xs:annotated">
>     <xs:choice>
>      <xs:element name="restriction" type="xs:simpleRestrictionType"/>
>      <xs:element name="extension" type="xs:simpleExtensionType"/>
>     </xs:choice>
>    </xs:extension>
>   </xs:complexContent>
>  </xs:complexType>
> </xs:element>
> 
> which is defined as:
> 
> <xs:complexType name="simpleRestrictionType" mixed="false">
>  <xs:complexContent>
>   <xs:restriction base="xs:restrictionType">
>    <xs:sequence>
>     <xs:element ref="xs:annotation" minOccurs="0" />
>     <xs:choice minOccurs="0">
>      <xs:annotation>
>       <xs:documentation>This choice is added simply to make this a valid
> restriction per the REC</xs:documentation>
>      </xs:annotation>
>      <xs:group ref="xs:simpleRestrictionModel" />
>     </xs:choice>
>     <xs:group ref="xs:attrDecls" />
>    </xs:sequence>
>    <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##other" processContents="lax" />
>   </xs:restriction>
>  </xs:complexContent>
> </xs:complexType>
> 
> and inherits the base attribute from the xs:restrictionType:
> 
> <xs:complexType name="restrictionType" mixed="false">
>  <xs:complexContent>
>   <xs:extension base="xs:annotated">
>    <xs:sequence>
>     <xs:choice minOccurs="0">
>      <xs:group ref="xs:typeDefParticle" />
>      <xs:group ref="xs:simpleRestrictionModel" />
>     </xs:choice>
>     <xs:group ref="xs:attrDecls" />
>    </xs:sequence>
>    <xs:attribute name="base" type="xs:QName" use="required" />
>   </xs:extension>
>  </xs:complexContent>
> </xs:complexType>
> 
> The restriction would have to be from another complex type with simple
> content. So I think that this complex type would probably be better
> created by extending a simple type (a list type with an item type of
> 'abc') than via restriction.
> 
> > nisttest:
> > - 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.
> 
> I don't know what this entails.
> 
> > - Many QName tests fail, because the prefixes are not registered
> > with xmlns attributes.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Jeni
> 
> ---
> Jeni Tennison
> http://www.jenitennison.com/
>

Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2002 07:12:30 UTC