- From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@acm.org>
- Date: 26 Jul 2005 07:46:31 -0600
- To: Sandy Gao <sandygao@ca.ibm.com>
- Cc: W3C XML Schema Comments list <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <1122384761.7352.9.camel@localhost>
On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 07:48, Sandy Gao wrote: > (Applies to both 1.0 rec and 1.1 drafts.) > > Sections 3.4.21~24.1 indicate that the lexical spaces for the unsigned > types are "a finite-length sequence of decimal digits (#x30-#x39)", > which means that signs are not allowed. That is, neither "-0" nor > "+123" is valid. > > But the Schema for Schemas says that the unsigned types are derived > from their base types by simply specifying a lower/upper bound, which > has no impact to the sign in the lexical space. > > Which interpretation is correct? This came up at the XSL/XMLQuery meetings last week, and I created a simple test document and schema (attached), which was run against all the schema processors I could conveniently find. The upshot with respect to leading + in the unsigned* types is: xsv allows "+0123" as unsignedInt Xerces J allows it Xerces C allows it MSV allows it The Oracle validator allows it Saxon 8 flags it as an error Michael Rys ran it against the SQL Server implementation of XML Schema, but from his report I'm not certain whether SQL Server allows it or disallows it. I think there are two things we can do: (1) treat the absence of a pattern facet as an error in the schema for schemas (since it deviates from our goal of eliminating magic from all built-in derivations as far as possible), or (2) treat the prose description as erroneous in failing to mention any possible sign. If anyone has evidence (preferably documentary, but recollections of intent may be the best we can do) bearing on what was intended, I'd be interested to see it. If tests on other processors show the same pattern as above -- i.e. if the large majority of processors allow leading signs, that probably counts as an argument in favor of (2). Either way, we should prepare an erratum for XML Schema 1.0 and ensure that 1.1 aligns with the corrected text. -CMSMcQ
Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2005 13:48:10 UTC