- 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