14820 2011-11-14 11:31:32 +0000 Implementation-defined features checklist 2012-01-06 23:45:29 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Structures: XSD Part 1 1.1 only PC All CLOSED FIXED resolved P2 normal --- 1 mike David_E3 cmsmcq liam www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 60014 0 mike 2011-11-14 11:31:32 +0000 In the (normative) appendix E of Part 1 listing implementation-defined features, the first entry reads: For the datatypes defined by [XML Schema: Datatypes] which depend on [XML 1.1] or [XML Namespaces 1.1], it is 60027 1 liam 2011-11-14 17:07:23 +0000 One of the changes in XML 1.1 was the introduction of Unicode NEL into the S production, so that whitespace is not in fact the same in XML 1.1; this was one of the reasons cited by vendors for not adopting 1.1. The other significant remaining differences between 1.1 and 1.05e are (1) handling of the version declaration; (2) C0 control characters allowed in 1.1 and not in 1.0 (but must be escaped). (character zero is still not allowed, however) (3) C1 control characters must be escaped (to try to detect character encoding problems) The purpose of XML 1.0 5e was to bring the spec up to date with Unicode and to fix an error related to the version declaration, so 5e did not affect whitespace or C0/C1 control characters. Hope this helps. 60034 2 mike 2011-11-14 18:18:08 +0000 >One of the changes in XML 1.1 was the introduction of Unicode NEL into the S production, so that whitespace is not in fact the same in XML 1.1 This is a surprisingly common belief even among experts. Perhaps it was true some draft of XML 1.1. In the actual Rec, NEL is a line ending character but it is not a whitespace character (production [3]). The set of line ending characters has changed, but XSD does not reference these. The set of whitespace characters has not changed. >The other significant remaining differences between 1.1 and 1.05e are... I don't believe any of these affect XSD, except perhaps the definition of xs:string: It is 60035 3 liam 2011-11-14 18:56:20 +0000 Well, I see what you mean. It's comparable to the difference between lexical and value space in XSD: in XML 1.1, where the production S is used, a Unicode NEL (#x2028) can appear, whereas it would be an error in a 1.0 document. This is not done editorially by a direct change in the S production, but to the end of line handling. But it is still a change to the whitespace rules, and indirectly affects "S". The difference starts to matter if other languages (e.g. XPath, XQuery) try to layer on top of XML to use "S" without including the line ending rules. However, I don't _think_ it matters for XSD, because an XML 1.1 parser would have been used to consume the input, and would have normalised NEL to #xA already. So I wouldn't want to leave unchallenged the assertion that there's no change in whitespace rules between 1.0 and 1.1. For xs:string, it might be worth adding a note, I agree. 60784 4 David_E3 2011-12-02 17:03:56 +0000 Proposal: (1) accept MK's change to the wording (possibly modulo xsd:string). (from the original comment) XSD 1.1 depends on other specifications for the definitions of some data types such as xs:NCName and the definition of whitespace. Although all current editions of [XML 1.0], [XML 1.1], [Namespaces in XML 1.0], and [XML Namespaces 1.1] have identical definitions of these constructs, future editions could introduce changes. Implementations may support either the definitions in the current specifications, or definitions in future specifications that supersede them, or both. [this wording leaves out a crucial bit concerning xs:string.] (2) Add a Note to say that the mapping from the XML character sequence to the infoset which serves as input to the validator is, strictly speaking, not constrained by this spec, so either the 1.0 mapping or the 1.1 mapping can be used by a conforming processor. 62083 5 cmsmcq 2011-12-28 01:24:46 +0000 A wording proposal adapted from MKay's original suggestion, with what I hope are minor changes to account for the difference in string, is at https://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.b14820.html 62364 6 cmsmcq 2012-01-06 23:37:59 +0000 The wording proposal mentioned in comment 5 was adopted by the XML Schema WG at its telcon today, and the change has been integrated into the status-quo version of the specification. Michael, if you would formally close the issue, I'd be grateful. Thanks.