- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 17 Jun 2002 11:26:39 +0100
- To: John Verhaeg <jverhaeg@metamatrix.com>
- Cc: "XML Schema Mailing List (E-mail)" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
John Verhaeg <jverhaeg@metamatrix.com> writes: > The "Attribute Use" described in section 3.2.2 of the Structures spec when a > "ref" attribute is present seems to indicate that, if present, the > default/fixed value must match the value specified in the declaration (the > globally defined Attribute): I think you're misreading the text below. > "value constraint} If there is a default or a fixed [attribute] > <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/>, then a pair consisting of the ·actual > value· (with respect to the {type definition} of the {attribute > declaration}) of that [attribute] <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/> and > either default or fixed, as appropriate, otherwise ·absent·." the 'as appropriate' means as determined by which [attribute] is present. > However, item 4 of Validation Rule: Attribute Locally Valid in section 3.2.4 > states: > > "4 The item's ·actual value· must match the value of the {value constraint}, > if it is present and fixed. " > > This seems to indicate that default values can be overridden in Attribute > Uses. XML Spy seems to allow the value to be overridden regardless of > whether the value constraint is fixed or default. That's correct, since defaults don't affect validation there's no reason not to allow a change of default. > Am I reading this incorrectly? It seems as if there is both a documentation > error in the spec and a problem with Spy. So I think at best a clarification is needed in the spec. and I disagree with Spy's allowing a 'fixed' value to be changed. ht -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh W3C Fellow 1999--2002, 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/ [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Monday, 17 June 2002 06:26:43 UTC