Lists Home |
Date Index |
"Dare Obasanjo" <email@example.com> writes:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Henry S. Thompson [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 3:17 AM
> > To: Dare Obasanjo
> > Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
> > Subject: Re: [xml-dev] (more details) embedding xml schema in
> > an instance doc
> > "Dare Obasanjo" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > The sForS is not a valid schema and thus should fail to validate.
> > I think it's time to stop saying this. As Eddie noted, there
> > is only one remaining issue (the use of whiteSpace in the
> > definitions for the builtin primitives) and this is a
> > contentious issue -- validators which enforce all and only
> > the normative requirements now pass the sForS.
> I'm not sure I understand this sentence so I'll ask again. Should
> restrictions of xs:anySimpleTYpe be allowed or not? I've heard
> conflicting answers to this question from various W3C XML Schema WG
> members and tend to agree with those that say it should be disallowed.
I agree that the REC is less than clear here. Given that the sForS is
normative, and the injunction against deriving from anySimpleType is
non-normative, it makes sense to me to resolve the apparent
contradiction in favour of the usage in the sForS, as a majority of
implementations appear to have done.
I hope the WG can produce an erratum clarifying this quickly.
> Or are you saying that schema validators should special case the sForS?
Not in my opinion, no. If the WG clarifies the situation by making
what is currently non-normative normative, then the sForS will have to
be changed at the same time. But, as I said, I favour the other
resolution (which would allow the sensible cases of derivation from
anySimpleType, i.e. those involving at _most_ the whiteSpace and
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: email@example.com
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]