- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:29:01 +0100
- To: "Post, Dr. Ulrich" <Ulrich.Post@softwareag.com>
- Cc: <public-xml-schema-testsuite@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Post, Dr. Ulrich" writes:
> I think, test case attP009 is ok for the following reasons:
With respect, I think Kasimir is right, and you and Microsoft are
wrong, on the grounds that the following clause from *Validation Rule:
Element Locally Valid (Complex Type)* is logically independent of the
aspects of the REC which deal with value constraints:
4 The {attribute declaration} of each attribute use in the
{attribute uses} whose {required} is *true* matches one of the
attribute information items in the element information item's
[attributes] as per clause 3.1 above.
and there is no such attribute on the relevant element in attP009.
The design goal here was to reconstruct XML DTD behaviour in a simpler
way:
<attribute name='attr'
use='optional' fixed='val' -- attr="..." not required in instances,
always in PSVI,
if present in instance must be attr="val"
use='required' fixed='val' -- attr="val" required in instance,
always in PSVI
The first case is how XML DTD's
<!ATTLIST foo attr CDATA #FIXED "val">
works, the second case is a cleaner reconstruction of what you must
say
<!ATTLIST foo attr (val) #REQUIRED>
to get.
ht
- --
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.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]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDAx99kjnJixAXWBoRAlWwAJ48fqemDWmFNtn6PUKRYaGUL7q2KwCfXYJc
NCPDdA63WjBhKb7PXvKlG8s=
=4l6s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 17 August 2005 11:29:13 UTC