- From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 09:34:32 -0600
- To: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
- Cc: oliver@cbcl.co.uk, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
On 24 Jun 2010, at 08:11 , C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote: > ... section G.1.1 Character Class Escapes [says] > > When the implementation supports multiple versions of the Unicode > database, > and they differ in salient respects (e.g. different properties > are assigned > to the same character in different versions of the database), > then it > is ·implementation-defined· which set of property definitions is > used > for any given assessment episode. > > ... > > XSD 1.1 requires you to document how you determine which version of > the database to use in interpreting block names. It does not, as far > as I can see, require anything further. (It does not, for example, > appear to require that you always use the same version within a given > validation, though as a user I think I'd rather that you did.) I should read more carefully. The phrase "is used for any given assessment episode" does seem to convey the expectation that an implementation should interpret all regexes in a given validation according to the same version of the Unicode database. I'm still not sure that it explicitly *requires* it, though. If for example two separately maintained schema documents assume different versions of the Unicode database -- one writes \p{IsGreek} and the other \p{IsGreekandCoptic}, say -- then it's hard to see how an implementation could limit itself to a single version of the database in a schema composed from those two schema documents. So I'd argue that it cannot and should not be *required*, though of course it's probably simpler all around if a single version of the database is used for any given validation. Sorry for missing this aspect of the issue in my earlier mail. -- **************************************************************** * C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Black Mesa Technologies LLC * http://www.blackmesatech.com * http://cmsmcq.com/mib * http://balisage.net ****************************************************************
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2010 15:35:02 UTC