W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > October 2004

RE: whiteSpace and normalizedString

From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:53:58 +0100
To: "'Nikola'" <nikola.stojanovic@acm.org>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E1CJfS7-0004k9-00@ukmail1.eechost.net>

There are several ways of parsing this sentence but the only one that makes
any semantic sense is:

For all .atomic. datatypes (except (xs:string union (types .derived. by
.restriction. from xs:string))) the value of whiteSpace
is collapse and cannot be changed by a schema author; 

I'm not sure how you're parsing it but I think that's where your confusion
lies.

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Nikola
> Sent: 18 October 2004 20:50
> To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
> Subject: RE: whiteSpace and normalizedString
> 
> 
> <snip n="1">
> For all .atomic. datatypes other than string (and types 
> .derived. by .restriction. from it) the value of whiteSpace
> is collapse and cannot be changed by a schema author;
> </snip>
> 
> <Michael Key>
> normalizedSpace is a type derived by restriction from string, 
> so the assertion quoted doesn't apply to it.
> </Michael Key>
> 
> When I read the above assertion and the definition for 
> simpleType "normalizedString", I assume that for 
> normalizedString all these 
> hold:
> 
> 1 - is .atomic. datatype
> 2 - is "other then string"
> 3 - is ".derived. by .restriction from string"
> 4 - value for its whiteSpace is "replace"
> 
> I cannot see how the "derived by restriction from string" 
> excludes normalizedString as there is no negation in "and 
> types .derived. 
> by .restriction. from it". As in [3] above, I assume that 
> "it" refers to string, not to plural "all .atomic. datatypes".
> 
> Is the key here that "other then string" is in some way 
> informal and doesn't include datatypes that are derived from 
> it? If that's 
> the case, maybe this wording could be more precise?
> 
> Regards,
> Nikola 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 18 October 2004 21:54:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:15:11 UTC