RE: [xml-dev] hexBinary type

[Michael Glavassevich <mrglavas@ca.ibm.com>]

... and it's the stance that Xerces-J takes too. Have no idea which
flavour/version of Xerces Eran is referring to but Apache Xerces-J 2.9.1
(and likely many of its predecessors) accepts this instance as it should.

Michael Glavassevich
XML Parser Development
IBM Toronto Lab
E-mail: mrglavas@ca.ibm.com
E-mail: mrglavas@apache.org

"Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com> wrote on 12/30/2007 05:27:19 PM:

> It's unusual for Xerces to be wrong on something so basic, but I
> can't see any reason for rejecting this instance. The mapping from
> the lexical space to the value space is only informally described,
> but it's fairly clear to an intelligent reader that 0Fb8 and 0FB8
> are different lexical representations of the same actual value, and
> this makes the instance valid. Certainly, that's the stance that Saxon
takes.
>
> Michael Kay
> http://www.saxonica.com/
>
> From: Eran Balter [mailto:E.Balter@F5.com]
> Sent: 30 December 2007 18:12
> To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: [xml-dev] hexBinary type

> Hi,
>
> I am validating the following instance:
>
> <hexBinary>0Fb8</hexBinary>
>
> with the following schema:
>
> <xsd:schema xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema";>
>         <xsd:element name="hexBinary">
>                 <xsd:simpleType>
>                         <xsd:restriction base="xsd:hexBinary">
>                                 <xsd:enumeration value="0FB8"/>
>                         </xsd:restriction>
>          </xsd:simpleType>
>         </xsd:element>
> </xsd:schema>
>
> The instance has the small ?b? while the enumeration permits the capital
?B?.
>
> Is it a valid instance? (the standard claims: ?The canonical
> representation for hexBinary is defined by prohibiting certain
> options from the Lexical Representation (§3.2.15.1). Specifically,
> the lower case hexadecimal digits ([a-f]) are not allowed.?).
> libxml2 claims it?s valid, while xerces claims it?s not.
>
> TIA,
> Eran