Re: XForms Basic and Schema Validation

Thanks. This is good enough for me (for now ;) )

Best regards,
David

Den May 9, 2006 kl. 9:17 PM skrev Henry S. Thompson:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> David Landwehr writes:
>
>> Please take a look at this:
>> <complexType>
>>       <simpleContent>
>>         <extension base="integer">
>>           <xsd:attribute name="test"  type="integer" use="required"/>
>>         </extension>
>>       </simpleContent>
>>     </complexType>
>>
>> We agree that this is a complex type with simple content. When Henry
>> wrote: "The validation semantics of (1) -- (3) are all defined in
>> terms of properties of the corresponding datatype.", I toke that as
>> this complex type would be regarded as a datatype which can be a
>> mistake from my part.
>
> Datatypes don't appear in schemas.  Only simple type definitions and
> complex type definitions.
>
>> Henry, could you clarify if the above type
>> definition would qualify as being name a datatype or should it be
>> named a complex type with some simple content which is a datatype?
>
> Neither.  It's a complex type definition, whose {content type} is a
> simple type definition.  That simple type definition is the built-in
> simple type definition called 'integer' in the XML Schema namespace.
> The _semantics_ of that simple type definition are provided by the
> 'integer' datatype, as defined in section 3.3.13 of Part 2 of W3C XML
> Schema v1.0 2nd edition [1].  Also in section 3.4.13 of Part 2 of W3C
> XML Schema v1.1 Last Call PWD [2], which I recommend to you as being
> clearer and more careful in its use of the words 'datatype' and
> 'simple type definition'.
>
>> Maybe the term datatype cannot be used in XForms as it is today,
>> e.g. maybe datatype is not an actual component you can reference?
>
> 'datatype' may be exactly the word XForms want, or 'simple type
> definition'.  I can't tell w/o more information.  It's precisely _in
> order_ that the semantics can be referenced _without_ all the XML and
> validation baggage that we define _both_ a datatype 'integer' _and_ a
> simple type definition xs:integer, so different specs can use the
> right thing for their needs.  For example, RDF are very careful to
> talk about the _datatypes_, because _all_ they want is the semantics.
>
> If XForms just want the semantics, use 'datatype'.  If they want the
> XML syntax, and user-defined types and the mechanics of validation,
> use 'simple type definition'.
>
>> Mark Birbeck wrote:
>
>> [Mark's expansion of what I meant is all correct, as far as I can  
>> tell
>> from a quick readthrough]
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> ht
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#integer
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xmlschema11-2-20060217/#integer
> - --
>  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)
>
> iD8DBQFEYOrakjnJixAXWBoRApjUAJ95ytHYYJ+17cUlCElYsUJc+CKpeACeOFDr
> wHY/1/ZFFTHfJHQLToWFILU=
> =I6g2
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2006 20:30:42 UTC