RE: bug in MS-Wildcard/wildZ013a?

You seem to be reading it as if it were a <restriction> rather than an
<extension>.

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: 19 January 2009 16:19
> To: public-xml-schema-testsuite@w3.org
> Subject: bug in MS-Wildcard/wildZ013a?
> 
> 
> Hej,
> 
> wildZ013a schema from the MS-Wildcard section contains the 
> following entries:
> 
> <xs:complexType name="base">
> 	<xs:sequence>
> 		<xs:element name="sub" type="a:derived2" minOccurs="0"/>
> 		<xs:element name="sub2" type="a:derived3" 
> minOccurs="0"/>
> 		<xs:element name="sub3" type="a:derived4" 
> minOccurs="0"/>
> 		<xs:element name="sub4" type="a:derived5" 
> minOccurs="0"/>
> 		<xs:element name="sub5" type="a:intersection1" 
> minOccurs="0"/>
> 		<xs:element name="sub6" type="a:intersection2" 
> minOccurs="0"/>
> 	</xs:sequence>
> 	<xs:attributeGroup ref="a:attG-a1"/>
>  </xs:complexType>
> 
>  <xs:complexType name="derived">
> 	<xs:complexContent>
> 		<xs:extension base="a:base">
> 			<xs:sequence />
> 			<xs:attributeGroup ref="a:attG-a2"/>
> 		</xs:extension>
> 	</xs:complexContent>
>  </xs:complexType>
> 
>  <xs:attributeGroup name="attG-a1">
> 	<xs:anyAttribute namespace="##other" 
> processContents="lax"/>  </xs:attributeGroup>
> 
>  <xs:attributeGroup name="attG-a2">
> 	<xs:anyAttribute namespace="##targetNamespace b c" 
> processContents="lax"/>  </xs:attributeGroup>
> 
> So one have to test if the namespace contsraint from 
> anyAttribute of attG-a1 is a valid subset if the anyAttribute 
> of attG-a2 according to algorithm 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-1/#cos-ns-subset
> 
> In this case our _sub_ is a pair of 'not' and the 
> targetNamespace and _super_ the targetNamespace, b and c.
> 
> However there is no rule for _sub_ having variety not and 
> _super_ having variety enumeration, so the rule is false and 
> therfor the whole schema afaiks.
> But the meta data says it is valid, so where is the point I'm missing?
> 
> Ciao,
> Tobias
>

Received on Monday, 19 January 2009 16:36:09 UTC