RE: question about substitutionGroup tests

This looks to me like a bug. In 1.0, Type Derivation OK (simple) rule 2.2.2
reads:

2.2.2 D's .base type definition. is not the .ur-type definition. and is
validly derived from B given the subset, as defined by this constraint.

In 1.1, it reads

2.2.2 D.{base type definition} is not .xs:anySimpleType. and is validly
derived from B given S, as defined by this constraint.

I think "ur-type definition" has been changed to "xs:anySimpleType" when it
should have been changed to "xs:anyType".

I will raise a bug for you:

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6227

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-schema-testsuite-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xml-schema-testsuite-request@w3.org] On Behalf 
> Of Tobias Koenig
> Sent: 14 November 2008 14:21
> To: public-xml-schema-testsuite@w3.org
> Subject: Re: question about substitutionGroup tests
> 
> 
> On Wednesday 12 November 2008 17:10:13 Michael Kay wrote:
> Hej Michael,
> 
> > {type definition}	--- The type definition corresponding to the
> > <simpleType> or <complexType> element information item in the 
> > [children], if either is present, otherwise the type definition 
> > .resolved. to by the .actual value. of the type 
> [attribute], otherwise 
> > the {type definition} of the element declaration .resolved. 
> to by the 
> > .actual value. of the substitutionGroup [attribute], if present, 
> > otherwise the .ur-type definition..
> Ahh ic, thanks!
> 
> But now I have another problem with the testcase elemZ021a.
> 
> According to the meta data it is valid, however my algorithm 
> defines it as
> invalid: The global element 'e' is of type xsd:AnyType (this 
> time for real ;)) and the element 'e1' of type xsd:int.
> 
> So to satisfy the inheritance I check all rules from 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-1/#key-val-sub-type
> where the 3rd rule applies (as xsd:int) is a simple type.
> 
> But which rule of 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-1/#cos-st-derived-ok
> applies? Rule 2.2.2 is applied here recursively and the 
> following is checked:
> 
>   xsd:int <-> xsd:anyType
>   xsd:long <-> xsd:anyType
>   xsd:integer <-> xsd:anyType
>   xsd:decimal <-> xsd:anyType
>   xsd:numeric <-> xsd:anyType
>   xsd:anyAtomicType <-> xsd:anyType
> 
> and then no other rule applies, as the base type of 
> anyAtomicType is anySimpleType and that is explicitely ruled 
> out in 2.2.2.
> 
> So how is it supposed to succeed?
> 
> Ciao,
> Tobias
>

Received on Friday, 14 November 2008 15:10:28 UTC