Re: [xmlschema-dev] <none>

Mike_Leditschke@nemmco.com.au writes:

> I am attempting to build a number of XML schemas using the
> http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema version of the spec. I am using
> XMLSpy which is reporting errors on XML that looks valid to me.
> 
> I would appreciate an indication as to whether or not the errors are
> legitimate.
> 
> 
> Problems
> 
> 1. The XML below gets the message below when validation is attempted.
> 
> "We are sorry, but the elements that have the same name but different types
>   functionality is not yet implemented in this version".
> 
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> <!-- edited with XML Spy v3.0.7 NT (http://www.xmlspy.com) by Michael
> Leditschke (NEMMCO) -->
> <schema xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema">
>   <complexType name="a">
>     <element name="c" type="string"/>
>   </complexType>
>   <complexType name="b">
>     <element name="c" type="decimal"/>
>   </complexType>
> </schema>
> 
> The two c elements are part of different type definitions and should be
> locally scoped and hence happily have different types. Yes/No?

That looks OK to me.  Have you tried the April version of xsv [1] ?

> 4. The XML below gets the message below when validation is attempted
> 
> "DTD/Schema error - element 'd' already defined" (the second definition is
>  highlighted).
> 
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> <!-- edited with XML Spy v3.0.7 NT (http://www.xmlspy.com) by Michael
> Leditschke (NEMMCO) -->
> <schema xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema">
>   <complexType name="a">
>     <element name="d">
>       <simpleType base="string">
>         <length value="5"/>
>       </simpleType>
>     </element>
>   </complexType>
>   <complexType name="b">
>     <element name="d">
>       <simpleType base="string">
>         <length value="5"/>
>       </simpleType>
>     </element>
>   </complexType>
> </schema>
> 
> This situation is very similar to the previous one except that rather than
> using an
> inbuilt type, I'm using an anonymous type definition. Again, the two 'd'
> elements
> are part of different type definitions and should be locally scoped.
> What have I done this time?

As above -- looks OK to me, but as it stands there's no way any
instance would get validated at all, as there are no top-level element 
definitions . . .

ht
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
          W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
		     URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/

Received on Thursday, 26 October 2000 03:52:28 UTC