5077 2007-09-26 00:38:40 +0000 Use of "le" in assertion test 2008-02-10 01:42:27 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Structures: XSD Part 1 1.1 only Macintosh All CLOSED FIXED http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xmlschema11-1-20070830/ clarification cluster resolved P2 minor --- 1 xan.gregg cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 16793 0 xan.gregg 2007-09-26 00:38:40 +0000 In 3.13, the example <xs:assert test="@min le @max"/> does not conform appear to the given grammar because of "le" 18154 1 cmsmcq 2007-12-27 00:27:32 +0000 The spec may not be as clear on this point as it needs to be. But in fact the grammar given for the "required subset" of XPath describes the subset of XPath that serves as a kind of implementation minimum: all conforming validators must support at least that subset of XPath, more or less as all conforming processors must support decimal numbers with up to a sixteen digits of precision. Just as schemas can use more than sixteen digits in a decimal number, so also schemas can use XPath expressions that do not fall into the "required subset" of XPath. So strictly speaking I don't think there's an error here, although it seems likely that the description of the "required subset" should be made clearer. 18156 2 mike 2007-12-27 00:35:28 +0000 >all conforming validators must support at least that subset of XPath, more or less as all conforming processors must support decimal numbers with up to a sixteen digits of precision. and it's worth pointing out that the S4SD contains a 20-digit integer even though implementations are required to support only 16-digit integers. 18172 3 xan.gregg 2008-01-01 21:38:29 +0000 Thanks for the explanation. Now I see the note about full XPath being possible. I don't see any special instructions for what processors should do when they encounter unsupported XPath beyond the minimum. Presumably they must treat unrecognized XPath as an error in the schema. The example in question would be a good place for a reminder note about minimal XPath vs. full XPath. 18703 4 cmsmcq 2008-02-04 16:17:21 +0000 In an effort to make better use of Bugzilla, we are going to use the 'severity' field to classify issues by perceived difficulty. This bug is getting severity=minor to reflect the existing whiteboard note 'easy'. 18869 5 cmsmcq 2008-02-08 02:20:07 +0000 A wording proposal including changes for this issue went to the WG on 7 February 2008: http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.consent.200801.html#composition (member-only link). 18946 6 cmsmcq 2008-02-08 23:36:14 +0000 The change proposal mentioned in comment #5 was adopted by the WG today. As shown in the extract attached to bug 5074, those changes include a change to the grammar of the required subset of XPath which replace the operators <, >, etc. with le, gt, etc. With that change, the example mentioned here becomes legal against the XPath subset. We believe this resolves the issue. Xan, please let us know if you agree with this resolution of your issue, by adding a comment to the issue record and changing the Status of the issue to Closed. Or, if you do not agree with this resolution, please add a comment explaining why. If you wish to appeal the WG's decision to the Director, then also change the Status of the record to Reopened. If you wish to record your dissent, but do not wish to appeal the decision to the Director, then change the Status of the record to Closed. If we do not hear from you in the next two weeks, we will assume you agree with the WG decision. 18955 7 xan.gregg 2008-02-10 01:42:27 +0000 Accepted.