Re: cs String Literal

Thanks David. I realise that the posted fragment was not complete but
usefully it was sufficient for you to understand my intent. Is <set>
the correct containing construct here do you think or are there other
possibilities ?

Christoph mentioned using <cs> with bound variables, could either of
you elaborate please (I will read the spec as well, it just that real
experience explanation is often clearer) ?

Look forward to an amended XSD.

Regards

Fraser.

On 25/04/2011, David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> wrote:
> On 22/04/2011 16:33, Fraser Goffin wrote:
>> I noted that there is a<cs>
>> element which looks like it can be used to contain string literals,
>> but when I attempt to use it, it will not validate against the mathml3
>> XSD.
>
> The fragment that you posted looks valid to me, but condition isn't
> allowed at the top level it is just intended to constrain other
> constructors, so it will fail to validate unless included into some more
> terms. Did you really get a validation error from the cs?
>
> .....
>
> Ouch yes you did, the file below validates against the relaxng and dtd
> but not against the xsd. Sorry that would be a bug, will report back
> with a fix asap (probably not today, it's a bit late) The XSD is mainly
> made by trang converting the relaxng schema to XSD, but the relax is
> preprocessed a bit first to make it simple enough for the conversion.
> I need to check where it went wrong.
>
> David
>
>
> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" >
>
> <set>
> <condition>
>      <apply>
>          <eq/>
>          <ci>PolicyNumber</ci>
>          <cs>abc123</cs>
>      </apply>
> </condition>
> </set>
> </math>
>
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 25 April 2011 22:10:54 UTC