- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 21:57:19 -0400
- To: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
- Cc: Ashok Malhotra <ashokma@microsoft.com>, XML Schema Comments <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Exactly, I agree. Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------ James Clark <jjc@jclark.com> 04/26/2002 09:11 PM To: Ashok Malhotra <ashokma@microsoft.com>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com cc: XML Schema Comments <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org> Subject: RE: Is +0 a nonPositiveInteger? > I'm sorry you are troubled but consider this case. > > <xsd:simpleType name="myTime"> > <xsd:restriction base="xsd:dateTime"> > <xsd:pattern > > value="[0-9]{2}:[0-9]{2}:[0-9]2.[0-9]*(Z|[+-]?[0-9]{2}:[0-9]{2})?."/> > </xsd:restriction> > </xsd:simpleType> > > What is the value space and lexical spece of the derived type and how > are they related? I would make a couple of observations here: - Defining a data type requires not just defining the lexical and value spaces, but also defining the mapping from the lexical space to the value space. There's no way in XML Schema for a user to specify a new lexical-to-value space mapping. The only lexical-to-value-space mappings available are those associated with the builtin primitive types. The lexical-to-value-space mapping of the derived type is always the lexical-to-value-space mapping of the base type. - Specifying a derived type with a pattern facet does NOT specify that the lexical space of the derived type is equal to the set of strings matched by the pattern regex. Rather it specifies that the lexical space is the intersection of that set of strings with the lexical space of base type. This ensures that the lexical space of the derived type is always a subset of the lexical space of the base type, which in turn guarantees that the lexical-to-value-space mapping of the base type remains suitable for the derived type. James
Received on Friday, 26 April 2002 22:08:49 UTC