- From: Steen Lehmann - SilverStream <slehmann@silverstream.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 11:17:39 +0200
- To: "'Eddie Robertsson'" <eddie@allette.com.au>, Billy Chan <billy@hkust.net>
- Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
- Message-ID: <6143397E8E92D411BE6800D0B7A9AD09525D93@XMAIL>
Surely the example below should read 1. <VALUE value-attr=""> and not 1. <VALUE attrType=""> since attrType is the name of the type, not the name of the attribute. > -----Original Message----- > From: Eddie Robertsson [mailto:eddie@allette.com.au] > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 9:40 AM > To: Billy Chan > Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org > Subject: Re: XML-Schema Validator Problems > > > Hi Billy, > > > Here's part of my schema in concern: > > <xs:element name="VALUE"> > > <xs:complexType> > > <xs:attribute name="value-attr" type="attrType" use="required"/> > > </xs:complexType> > > </xs:element> > > > > <xs:simpleType name="attrType"> > > <xs:union> > > <xs:simpleType> > > <xs:restriction base="xs:string"> > <xs:enumeration value="N/A"/> > <xs:enumeration value=""/> > > </xs:restriction> > > </xs:simpleType> > > <xs:simpleType> > > <xs:restriction base="xs:double"/> > > </xs:simpleType> > > </xs:union> > > </xs:simpleType> > > > > The VALUE element is designed to have double values or > "N/A" or emtpy string values. > > > > And the elements are declared as follows in my XML: > > 1. <VALUE abc=""/> > > 2. <VALUE attrType="N/A"/> > > 3. <VALUE attrType="abc"/> > > 4. <VALUE/> > > > > For case 1, 2 and 3, the validator says my XML is valid > (but case 1 and 3 should not be valid, according to the > schema). The validator only detects the error for case 4. > > > > I am looking for help to clarify if it's my schema's syntax > problem or if it's the incorrect implementation of the > XMLSpy4 validator. Please help and suggest. (BTW, is there > any recommended XML-Schema validator other than XMLSpy4's???) > > Your schema code looks good to me and I just copied your code > into XML Spy4b3 and everything works fine. So, I guess this > means that XML Spy4 is in error although it seems strange > since the b3 is working fine. > > Cheers, > /Eddie >
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2001 05:18:27 UTC