- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 12:06:24 +0100
- To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org, Stefan Wachter <Stefan.Wachter@gmx.de>
- CC: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
Hi Stefan, > I worked through the schema test collection with the following > result. Can anyone confirm my result? > > msxsdtest: > - attP009: Required attribute must not be missing - even if there > is a fixed value. (There was already a lot of discusstion about this > topic in the xmlschema-dev list.) Agreed. > - attgA008, stA003: ID attributes have not to be unique with > respect to imported or included schema documents. Agreed. > suntest: > - idc001.nogen.xsd, idc005.nogen.xsd, idc006.nogen.xsd: the default > namespace has no effect inside XPaths. Agreed. > - xsd001.xsd: New attributes must not be introduced in restrictions. Agreed. > - xsd003b.xsd: Unknown simple type "number". Agreed. (It's probably a hangover from when xs:decimal was xsd:number in the Proposed Recommendation dated 16 March 2001.) > - xsd022.xsd: Missing base attribute in simple content restriction. > > I am not sure about this last test case. Definition is as follows: > > <xsd:complexType> > <xsd:simpleContent> > <xsd:restriction> > <xsd:simpleType> > <xsd:list itemType="abc"/> > </xsd:simpleType> > </xsd:restriction> > </xsd:simpleContent> > </xsd:complexType> > > This looks quite reasonable, but I think the base attribute is > required here. I agree. The base attribute is shown as required on the definition of the xs:restriction element within the xs:simpleContent element both within the Rec and in the schema for schema. A xs:restriction within a xs:simpleContent element is of type xs:simpleRestrictionType: <xs:element name="simpleContent" id="simpleContent"> <xs:annotation> <xs:documentation source="http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#element-simpleContent"/> </xs:annotation> <xs:complexType> <xs:complexContent> <xs:extension base="xs:annotated"> <xs:choice> <xs:element name="restriction" type="xs:simpleRestrictionType"/> <xs:element name="extension" type="xs:simpleExtensionType"/> </xs:choice> </xs:extension> </xs:complexContent> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> which is defined as: <xs:complexType name="simpleRestrictionType" mixed="false"> <xs:complexContent> <xs:restriction base="xs:restrictionType"> <xs:sequence> <xs:element ref="xs:annotation" minOccurs="0" /> <xs:choice minOccurs="0"> <xs:annotation> <xs:documentation>This choice is added simply to make this a valid restriction per the REC</xs:documentation> </xs:annotation> <xs:group ref="xs:simpleRestrictionModel" /> </xs:choice> <xs:group ref="xs:attrDecls" /> </xs:sequence> <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##other" processContents="lax" /> </xs:restriction> </xs:complexContent> </xs:complexType> and inherits the base attribute from the xs:restrictionType: <xs:complexType name="restrictionType" mixed="false"> <xs:complexContent> <xs:extension base="xs:annotated"> <xs:sequence> <xs:choice minOccurs="0"> <xs:group ref="xs:typeDefParticle" /> <xs:group ref="xs:simpleRestrictionModel" /> </xs:choice> <xs:group ref="xs:attrDecls" /> </xs:sequence> <xs:attribute name="base" type="xs:QName" use="required" /> </xs:extension> </xs:complexContent> </xs:complexType> The restriction would have to be from another complex type with simple content. So I think that this complex type would probably be better created by extending a simple type (a list type with an item type of 'abc') than via restriction. > nisttest: > - Many tests for the float and double types are incorrect because > the assume a different scale/precision of floating point numbers > then XML schema (or Java) does. I don't know what this entails. > - Many QName tests fail, because the prefixes are not registered > with xmlns attributes. Agreed. Cheers, Jeni --- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com/
Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2002 07:06:26 UTC