- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 15:44:24 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=29658
Abel Braaksma <abel.braaksma@xs4all.nl> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |abel.braaksma@xs4all.nl
--- Comment #2 from Abel Braaksma <abel.braaksma@xs4all.nl> ---
It is possible that the MS processor is actually right, the base type is a
union and the derived type restricts by pattern in a union (does this
invalidate 3.3.2.4 of W3C XML Schema?).
There's an easy fix though, I validated it successfully by replacing
<xs:simpleType name="QName-or-EQName">
<xs:union memberTypes="xs:QName">
<xs:simpleType>
<xs:restriction base="xs:token">
<xs:pattern value="Q\{(.*)\}[\i-[:]][\c-[:]]*"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
</xs:union>
</xs:simpleType>
with:
<xs:simpleType name="QName-or-EQName">
<xs:restriction base="xs:token">
<xs:pattern value="Q\{(.*)\}[\i-[:]][\c-[:]]*"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
Which, without looking at it too carefully, seems to be a fair change.
At the same time I am wondering why we call something "QName-or-EQName" when
the pattern only allows the EQName format (with leading "Q").
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 24 May 2016 15:44:27 UTC