4058 2006-12-09 20:12:44 +0000 elemZ028c - UPA violation 2009-01-13 17:24:26 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Test Suite Microsoft tests 2006-11-06 PC Windows XP RESOLVED FIXED metadata updated 2009-01-13 P2 normal --- 1 mike ht public-xml-schema-testsuite oldest_to_newest 13117 0 mike 2006-12-09 20:12:44 +0000 In the Microsoft Element test set, test elemZ028c, the schema elemZ028c.xsd is described as valid but appears to violate UPA. Specifically, there is a conflict between elements a and b in: <xs:element type="xs:short" substitutionGroup="b" name="a"/> <xs:element type="xs:decimal" name="b"/> <xs:complexType name="base"> <xs:all> <xs:element ref="a"/> <xs:element ref="b"/> </xs:all> </xs:complexType> 13118 1 mike 2006-12-09 20:40:38 +0000 Test elemZ028d suffers essentially the same problem, except that the compositor is xs:choice rather than xs:all. (Saxon actually doesn't report a UPA violation in this case, it reports a violation of Element Declarations Consistent, but that's purely an accident of the order of checking the rules). Schema elemZ028f.xsd, used in the following tests, shows the same problem: <test group="elemZ028f1" name="elemZ028f1"/> <test group="elemZ028f1" name="elemZ028f1.v"/> <test group="elemZ028f2" name="elemZ028f2"/> <test group="elemZ028f2" name="elemZ028f2.v"/> <test group="elemZ028f3" name="elemZ028f3"/> <test group="elemZ028f3" name="elemZ028f3.v"/> 13840 2 zafara 2007-01-29 22:45:58 +0000 Agreed that the expected outcome of this test should be invalid. We are following up with the WG to determine the process of updating the test suite. 20699 3 mike 2008-06-21 16:04:29 +0000 Agreed, these schemas are invalid and should be marked as such in the metadata.