W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > April to June 2009

[Bug 6909] New: is a pre-lexical facet magic?

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 16:10:51 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-6909-703@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>

           Summary: is a pre-lexical facet magic?
           Product: XML Schema
           Version: 1.1 only
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Datatypes: XSD Part 2
        AssignedTo: David_E3@VERIFONE.com
        ReportedBy: davep@iit.edu
         QAContact: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
                CC: cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com

We carefully explain that a lexical facet, by constraining the lexical space,
may remove values from the value space.  We explain that a value-based facet
may remove lexical representations from the lexical space.  But we don't
anywhere (that I can find) say that when a pre-lexical facet us used, the
lexical space loses those character strings that cannot be obtained by
subjecting some character string to the processing that is required by the

E.g., why does the lexical space of normalizedString not contain strings
containing carriage returns?  The spec asserts that it does not, but there is
no reason given anywhere that makes that loss other than magic.  (Much like in
1.0, the loss of decimal points in the canonical representations of integers
was magic.)

Granted, we have explicitly (by magic) insured that every datatype using a
whitespace facet does lose the strings in question, but we have also authorized
implementation-defined facets.  Presumably the rules about lexical and
value-based facets apply to implementation-defined lexical and value-based
facets.  But there is no reason the rule I imputed above should hold for
implementation-defined pre-lexical facets.

Shouldn't there be?

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 14 May 2009 16:11:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:50:09 UTC