- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: 28 Jul 2003 14:16:43 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 17:33, Dan Connolly wrote: [...] > > ** Failures - could fix: > > NegativeEntailmentTest xmlsch-02/Manifest.rdf#whitespace-facet-2 - FAIL > > NegativeEntailmentTest xmlsch-02/Manifest.rdf#whitespace-facet-1 - FAIL > > These test non-mutual entailment of a valid literal with an invalid > > literal that differs only by whitespace. Unfortunately our XSD > > handling library is happy with the whitespace and doesn't > > treat " 3 " as an invalid int. > > This could be fixed if that is indeed how XSD is supposed to work, > > though the current behaviour seems more useful in practice. > > Would somebody please turn that into a question of clarification > for the XML Schema folks? I think we've had that in a comment from them. They pointed out, as I understand it, that whitespace processing occurs before the lexical form is determined, thus "3" is a member of the lexical space of decimal, but " 3 " is not. <foo xsi:type="xsd:decimal"> 3 </foo> is legal because the spaces are discarded as part of determining the lexical form. The RDFCore WG agreed that it required the exact lexical form when it approved the xmlsch-02 test case. I suggest this fits the be precise what you produce and forgiving in what you consume model. When generating RDF/XMl, make sure you don't include the white space, to produce a correct document. But when processing incoming RDF/XML, you can be a bit more forgiving. Brian
Received on Monday, 28 July 2003 09:17:27 UTC