- From: Barclay, Daniel <daniel@fgm.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 17:30:58 -0400
- To: <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4A9D9292.9040301@fgm.com>
In the XML Schema Definition Language (XSD) 1.1 Part 2: Datatypes CR at http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-xmlschema11-2-20090430, section 2.2.3 says: For purposes of this specification, the value spaces of primitive datatypes are disjoint, even in cases where the abstractions they represent might be thought of as having values in common. However, the specification goes on to define the value spaces of hexBinary and base64Binary to be the same set of values: Section 3.3.16.1, Value Space (for hexBinary) says: The ˇvalue spaceˇ of hexBinary is the set of finite-length sequences of zero or more binary octets. The length of a value is the number of octets. Section 3.3.17.1, Value Space (for base64Binary) says, identically: The ˇvalue spaceˇ of base64Binary is the set of finite-length sequences of zero or more binary octets. The length of a value is the number of octets. Since: - the value space of hexBinary is the set of finite-length sequences of zero or more binary octets, and - the value space of base64Binary is _also_ the set of finite-length sequences of zero or more binary octets, then those two value spaces are the same set. Since the are the same set, they clearly are not disjoint. Something needs to be adjusted in the wording. Perhaps defining the value spaces in terms of values that correspond to the octet sequences, but are not the octet sequences themselves, would work. (The values wouldn't be defined beyond corresponding to the octet sequences and belonging to whichever value space.) That is, saying that hexBinary's value space is a set of values _corresponding_ to octet sequences and base64Binary's value space is a set of values _corresponding_ to an octet sequences no longer implies that those values are the same values and therefore that those sets are the same set. Daniel -- (Plain text sometimes corrupted to HTML "courtesy" of Microsoft Exchange.) [F]
Received on Tuesday, 1 September 2009 21:38:04 UTC