Re: Fwd: Re: Question: Enumerations in schema

Shivaram,

I can never parse that kind of thing - what's the outcome?

Stephen.

PS: Is "A value in a ·value space· is facet-valid with respect to
     ·enumeration· if the value is one of the values specified in
     {value}" meant to be a joke or is xml schema really written
     by lawyers? ;-)

Shivaram Mysore wrote:
> Norm Walsh who is on the TAG [1] responded to this issue.
>  
> [1]  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/
> 
> Note: forwarded message attached.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail 
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/50x/*http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail/static/efficiency.html> 
> - 50x more storage than other providers!
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject:
> Re: Question: Enumerations in schema
> From:
> Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
> Date:
> Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:23:50 -0400
> To:
> Shivaram Mysore <shivarammysore@yahoo.com>
> 
> To:
> Shivaram Mysore <shivarammysore@yahoo.com>
> 
> 
> / Shivaram Mysore <shivarammysore@yahoo.com> was heard to say:
> | I'm not a huge expert in XMLSchema, but my understanding is that
> | enumeration values are literal. So if I use a different qualifier
> | (or even no qualifier) it will fail strict validation.
> |
> | E.g. the snippet
> |
> | <xk:KeyUsage xmlns:xk="http://www.w3.org/2002/03/xkms#">xk:Signature</xk:KeyUsage>
> |
> | will fail, whereas
> |
> | <xk:KeyUsage xmlns:xkms="http://www.w3.org/2002/03/xkms#">xkms:Signature</xkms:KeyUsage>
> |
> | will succeed.
> 
> Well, Part 2 says:
> 
>   Validation Rule: enumeration valid
> 
>     A value in a ·value space· is facet-valid with respect to
>     ·enumeration· if the value is one of the values specified in
>     {value}
> 
> And
> 
>   3.2.18 QName
> 
>     [Definition:] QName represents XML qualified names. The ·value
>     space· of QName is the set of tuples {namespace name, local part},
>     where namespace name is an anyURI and local part is an NCName. The
>     ·lexical space· of QName is the set of strings that ·match· the
>     QName production of [Namespaces in XML].
> 
> Which I interpret to mena that the values given in the enumeration are
> (uri,localname) pairs and the matching is done against (uri,localname)
> pairs in the document being validated. I don't think the prefixes come
> into play.
> 
> | I think KeyBindingStatus will also have the same problem.
> |
> | Am I misunderstanding XMLSchema? If not - do we really need to
> | enumerate these values in the schema?
> 
> I can't answer either of those questions :-), but I think the
> enumeration you're using *should* do the logically correct thing with
> respect to qnames in the document being validated.
> 
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
>

Received on Friday, 13 August 2004 09:28:22 UTC