Re: 1.0 errata section 10 (complex type validation clarification)

Howdy all,

Here's the follow up.  Sorry it took me so long to post it.

I talked to two different people who are active in schema.  They both 
confirmed that if you have a xsi:type on an element and that element 
also has a type defined via schema, then the xsi:type must be derived 
from the schema declared type by restriction or extension.  And thus, 
for all simple types if the value is valid for the xsi:type then it 
would necessarily be valid for the schema declared type.  The only time 
this could not be true would be for complex types where the xsi:type 
would allow elements, attrs, etc. that weren't in the schema declared type.


--Aaron

John Boyer wrote:
> 
> Just for a little further info, we didn't read the section of Schema 1.1 
> that you quoted as meaning
> that xsi:type overrides the type offered by the schema itself.  The 
> paragraph seemed to just be
> trying to get the reader to understand that type information could come 
> from the schema or from
> xsi:type.
> 
> I can see in an 80-20 way how you might read it that way, so the 
> response from us is to ask if you
> could please check with the schema group as we feel that it might be 
> worth a bit of clarification
> on their part to say that they did not mean to imply xsi:type overrides 
> the schema type assigned
> to the node.  It would be for them to decide whether they actually do a 
> clarification.
> 
> For our own part, the node is valid if it satifies all *applicable* 
> schema definitions, so on the off
> chance that the appearance of xsi:type overrides schema definitions, I 
> would think that our
> wording is still safe and also clearly spells out the fact that the type 
> MIP in particular is a separate
> channel of validity from information derived from schema and/or xsi:type.
> 
> Best regards,
> John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
> Senior Product Architect/Research Scientist
> Co-Chair, W3C XForms Working Group
> Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
> IBM Victoria Software Lab
> E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com  http://www.ibm.com/software/
> 
> Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Steven Pemberton" <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>*
> Sent by: www-forms-request@w3.org
> 
> 08/02/2006 08:49 AM
> 
> 	
> To
> 	"Aaron Reed" <aaronr@us.ibm.com>, www-forms@w3.org
> cc
> 	
> Subject
> 	Re: 1.0 errata section 10 (complex type validation clarification)
> 
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aaron,
> 
> The working group discussed this today, and couldn't see how you came to  
> your conclusion. We think that you should be talking to the schema group  
> for this clarification.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Steven
> 
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 22:10:02 +0200, Aaron Reed <aaronr@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>  >
>  > Hi,
>  >
>  > I have a question after reading 10.1 at:  
>  > http://www.w3.org/2006/03/REC-xforms-20060314-errata.html#E10
>  >
>  > I understand that to mean that the selected node value must be valid 
> for  
>  > the type MIP, xsi:type AND as defined by schema (internal or external).  
>  >   But I was looking through XML Schema 1.1 part 1 spec this week and I  
>  > saw:
>  >
>  > "The Simple Type Definition (§2.2.1.2) or Complex Type Definition  
>  > (§2.2.1.3) used in ·validation· of an element is usually determined by  
>  > reference to the appropriate schema components. An element information  
>  > item in an instance may, however, explicitly assert its type using the  
>  > attribute xsi:type."
>  >
>  > Which reads to me that if xsi:type is present then any type applied via  
>  > internal or external schema will be ignored.  Could you please clarify  
>  > which behavior an implementor should exhibit?
>  >
>  > Thanks,
>  > --Aaron
>  >
>  >
>  >
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 15 August 2006 03:33:14 UTC