W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > January 2005

RE: XSV results discrepancy (web vs installation)

From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:31:17 -0000
To: "'Hirtle, David'" <David.Hirtle@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E1Cp54L-0004oI-00@ukmail1.eechost.net>

FYI, Saxon reports this schema as valid.

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Hirtle, David
> Sent: 12 January 2005 20:15
> To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
> Subject: XSV results discrepancy (web vs installation)
> 
> 
> Good day,
> 
> Attempting to validate the document
> http://www.ruleml.org/0.88/exa/appendix2a.ruleml
> 
> using the current XSV web interface results in the following 
> schema error:
> 
> http://www.ruleml.org/0.88/xsd/modules/atom_module.xsd:120:2: Invalid:
> non-deterministic content model for type Atom.type:
> {http://www.ruleml.org/0.88/xsd}:slot/{http://www.ruleml.org/0
> .88/xsd}:slot
> 
> However, the self-installing Win32 installation
> (ftp://ftp.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/pub/XSV/XSV28.EXE) reports no such
> non-determinism.  (See below for details.)
> 
> No idea if this has anything to do with the October update.  (Similar
> documents weren't being reported as non-deterministic back in 
> August using
> the XSV web interface.)  Just thought I should report it.
> 
> David
> 
> ***
> 
> The basic content model in question is below, which, though 
> complicated,
> should be deterministic:
> 
> (
> 	( A, (B)*, ( (C)+, (B)* )? ) |
> 	(
> 	  ( 
>           ( (B)+, ( (C)+, (B)* )? ) |
> 	    ( (C)+, (B)* )
> 	  ), D
> 	)
>  )
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 13 January 2005 13:31:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:49 GMT