- From: Hans Teijgeler <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
- Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:03:56 +0100
- To: "XML-Schema Developers Forum" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
- Cc: "Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com>, "Paap, Onno" <onno.paap@ezzysurf.com>
- Message-ID: <000001c5129e$06c9fa40$0300a8c0@hans>
Dear Michael, I downloaded Stylus Studio's XML Editor and validated the same file, and also had the same Catch 22 when a Default value is entered: * the use MUST be consistent with the base type * since the base type attribute has use="required" I changed that back to that, BUT: * then I get the error message: "If default and use are both present, use must have the value 'optional' " Can you or someone else help me to get out of this booby trap? Regards, Hans -----Original Message----- From: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Hans Teijgeler Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 12:38 PM To: 'Michael Kay'; 'XML-Schema Developers Forum' Cc: 'Paap, Onno' Subject: RE: Default and Fixed Values of attributes Dear Michael, Thanks for your blazingly fast response, written on a Sundaynight! It gives some clues for further digging. 1) In 2.1 it says that the stuff in 2.1.3 must be true IF B is in the same target namespace as R. That is interesting. What if the schema that defines R is imported in the schema that defines B? 2) I would be obliged to receive your reaction on the other questions in my message, viz: * Whether or not the definition of a default or fixed value should have as a consequence that the use constraint should become "optional" (for default values) or even should be removed at all (for fixed values). * Can you explain the rationale for the split between specialization(typing)_by_extension and specialization_by_restriction? >From a data modelling point of view that is illogical, because adding an attribute or child element also constitutes an extra constraint, and besides that it is highly inconvenient and causes a lot of hassle. Kind regards, Hans ======================================================================== =============================================== -----Original Message----- From: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Michael Kay Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 6:50 PM To: 'Hans Teijgeler'; 'XML-Schema Developers Forum' Cc: 'Paap, Onno' Subject: RE: Default and Fixed Values of attributes _____ From: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Hans Teijgeler Sent: 13 February 2005 16:38 To: XML-Schema Developers Forum Cc: Paap, Onno Subject: Default and Fixed Values of attributes Ladies and gentlemen, I am struggling with Default and Fixed Values for attributes, and I need your advice. Assume: 1. complexType A with attribute 'a' 2. complexType B is typed with A and the inherited attribute 'a' is restricted by means of a default or fixed value "value1" 3. complexType C is typed with B and the inherited attribute 'a' has the inherited default or fixed value "value1" Now I want to define an other default or fixed value "value2" for inherited attribute 'a' of complexType C because that value is, in the real world, different for this subtype. WRONG!!! When I do that (in XMLSpy, latest version) that "value2" is kind of "inherited backwards" to the inherited attribute 'a' of complexType B, but not to A (see below) The rules for "fixed" and "default" are slighly different. For "fixed", Schema Part 1 secton 3.4.6, Schema Component Constraint: Derivation Valid (Restriction, Complex) tells you: 2 For each attribute use (call this R) in the <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#ct-attribute_declarations> {attribute uses} the appropriate case among the following must be true: 2.1 If there is an attribute use in the {attribute <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#ct-attribute_declarations> uses} of the {base type <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#ct-base_type_definition> definition} (call this B) whose {attribute <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#attribute> declaration} has the same {name} <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#a-name> and {target <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#a-target_namespace> namespace}, then all of the following must be true: 2.1.3 [Definition:] Let the effective value constraint of an attribute use be its {value <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#au-value_constraint> constraint}, if present, otherwise its {attribute <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#attribute> declaration}'s {value <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#a-value_constraint> constraint} . Then one of the following must be true: 2.1.3.1 B's <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#key-evc> .effective value constraint. is <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#key-null> .absent. or default. 2.1.3.2 R's <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#key-evc> .effective value constraint. is fixed with the same string as B's. In other words, if B has a fixed value then R (your C) must have the same fixed value. That's reasonable: a restricted subtype can only permit values that are valid for the supertype. On the other hand, if B has a default value there is no rule that R (your C) must have the same default value. However, there's nothing in the spec corresponding to the "backwards inheritance" you describe. XMLSpy seems to be internally confused I think this is the nub of your problem. XML Spy is not the most conformant of schema processors. If you want to use trial and error to find out what the spec means (and we all need to, occasionally) then use Xerces and XSV: if they give the same answer, it's almost certainly right. Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/
Received on Monday, 14 February 2005 14:04:20 UTC