DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7167>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7167 parser does not validate the XML Schema Schema correctly [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|INVALID | ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2002-03-21 23:25 ------- What fun! You reference section 3.14.1 but this section is non normative!. section 3.14.6 (http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#coss-st) which is normative says: 4 If the {base type definition} is not the �simple ur-type definition�, all of the following must be true: 4.1 The definition must be a �valid restriction� as defined in Derivation Valid (Restriction, Simple) (�3.14.6). which could be read to say that "Derivation Valid (Restriction, Simple) (�3.14.6)." is not followed for types with base=�simple ur-type definition� and clearly states that the �simple ur-type definition� is a valid base type at least some of the time. I thought that the XML schemas schema was by defintion normative i.e valid. Any XML Schema lawyers around? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
