- From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 13:26:23 +0000
- To: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
- Cc: "xmlschema-dev@w3.org" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
6. We move on. The problem is fixed in XSD 1.1, both Xerces and Saxon implement XSD 1.1, problem solved. We can't undo history. Michael Kay Saxonica > On 26 Feb 2016, at 11:55, Costello, Roger L. <costello@mitre.org> wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > Let's summarize: > > 1. Xerces reports an error with the below schema (XML Schema 1.0 validation). > > 2. Saxon reports that the below schema is fine. > > 3. Xerces strictly follows the algorithm specified in the XML Schema specification. > > 4. Saxon does not strictly follow the algorithm because the Saxon team recognized that the algorithm is flawed. > > 5. We have an interoperability problem: when validating the exact same schema, system 1 using Xerces gets a different result than system 2 using Saxon. > > So, where do we go from here? As I see it, there are three choices: > > (a) The Xerces team modifies their code to be consistent with Saxon. > > (b) The Saxon team modifies their code to be consistent with Xerces. > > (c) Both the Xerces team and the Saxon team do nothing and the world remains in the current state of non-interoperability. > > Thoughts? > > /Roger > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > <xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"> > > <xs:element name="A" type="xs:double" /> > <xs:element name="B" substitutionGroup="A" type="xs:double" /> > > <xs:complexType name="base"> > <xs:sequence> > <xs:element ref="A" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" /> > </xs:sequence> > </xs:complexType> > > <xs:complexType name="derived"> > <xs:complexContent> > <xs:restriction base="base"> > <xs:sequence> > <xs:element ref="B" minOccurs="0" /> > </xs:sequence> > </xs:restriction> > </xs:complexContent> > </xs:complexType> > </xs:schema> >
Received on Friday, 26 February 2016 13:28:24 UTC