2184 2005-09-14 18:47:59 +0000 R-191: Question about e-props-correct.2 2012-12-04 00:51:21 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Structures: XSD Part 1 1.0 only All Windows 3.1 NEW needsDrafting P2 normal --- 1 sandygao David_E3 www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 6190 0 sandygao 2005-09-14 18:47:59 +0000 Is the following element decl valid? <xsd:element name="Element" fixed="1.0e-2"> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:float"> <xsd:pattern value="...E.."/> <xsd:restriction> <xsd:simpleType> <xs:element> Note that 1.0e-2 doesn't satisfy the pattern, so it's not valid wrt the anonymous simple type. But "e-props-correct.2" only requires the canonical rep (not the original lexical rep) to be valid wrt the type defi, and the canonical rep of "1.0e-2" (as a float) is "1.0E-2", which does satisfy the pattern. "Element Declaration Properties Correct" states: "2 If there is a {value constraint}, the canonical lexical representation of its value must be valid with respect to the {type definition} as defined in Element Default Valid (Immediate) (3.3.6)." And to check the above constraint, we need to have the {value constraint}'s value (an actual value). To get such actual value: "{value constraint} If there is a default or a fixed [attribute], then a pair consisting of the actual value (with respect to the {type definition}, if it is a simple type definition, or the {type definition}'s {content type}, if that is a simple type definition, or else with respect to the built-in string simple type definition) of that [attribute] and either default or fixed, as appropriate, otherwise absent." So it seems that we need to use the type defi to convert the original lexical rep to an actual value, then generate a canonical rep from the actual value, and use the type defi again to validate such canonical rep. Is this the intention? Is it an error if the original lexical rep is not valid? See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2003Jan/0043.html 6191 1 sandygao 2005-09-14 18:48:15 +0000 Henry's response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2003JanMar/0020.html Discussed at the Feb. 7 concall. WG agreed to classify R-191 as an error w/erratum.