[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Jeff Rafter <lists@jeffrafter.com> writes:
>
> xs:integer is a derived type from the primitive xs:decimal which
> according to the above should be considered derived from
> anySimpleType. (I know you know all this, I am just putting it here
> for completeness) Hence the simple ur-type and xs:integer should be
> comparable but none of the three implementations tested allow it. So,
> should it not be considered a bug?
You missed the impact of my second quote [2]:
"The mapping from lexical space to value space is unspecified for
items whose type definition is the *simple ur-type
definition*. Accordingly this specification does not constrain
processors' behaviour in areas where this mapping is implicated, for
example checking such items against enumerations, constructing
default attributes or elements whose declared type definition is the
*simple ur-type definition*, checking identity constraints involving
such items."
XSV (and I presume Xerces) take advantage of this by saying that when
mapping a lexical form to a value for anySimpleType, they always map
to a member of the value space of xs:string. And xs:string values and
xs:integer values are incomparable.
A processor _could_ choose to dispatch on lexical form and convert
e.g. (anySimpleType)"3.0" to the appropriate member of the xs:decimal
value space, but I'm not aware of any processor which does.
ht
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#Simple_Type_Definition
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.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]
|
