hmm, i think all 3 bugs are valid, but i could be mistaken....
the simple type in include the broken int, so now it's broken.
the element 'size' includes the simple type so now it's broken.
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Sam Tregar wrote:
> The following bad snippet in my schema:
>
> <xs:element name="size">
> <xs:simpleType>
> <xs:restriction base="xs:integer">
> <xs:minInclusive value="0"/>
> <xs:maxInclusive value="9999999999"/>
> </xs:restriction>
> </xs:simpleType>
> </xs:element>
>
> Generated a good error and two bad ones when trying to validate a document
> against it:
>
> Error at file /usr/local/bricolage-SOAP/doc_GdUs.xml, line 3, char 196
> Message: maxInclusive value '+9999999999' must be less than or equal to
> base's maxInclusive value '+2147483647'
>
> Error at file /usr/local/bricolage-SOAP/doc_GdUs.xml, line 3, char 196
> Message: Unknown simpleType: {null}
>
> Error at file /usr/local/bricolage-SOAP/doc_GdUs.xml, line 3, char 196
> Message: Untyped element: size
>
> The first one is spot-on. The other two are bugs, I think. Also, would
> it be possible to label schema errors with the line and char of the schema
> file rather than the line in the document where the schema is declared?
>
> -sam
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
