Re: Issue with XSD 1.1 assertions with dateTime and duration...

[Jorge Williams]

Okay confirmed that the validation works if you remove the explicit casts...but 
doesn't that mean that there's another bug?  Regardless as to whether or not 
the explicit casts are needed the behavior of the validation should be the same.

I bring this up because the Saxon implementation fails if the casts are not 
there -- I'm guessing the nodes are not typed in that implementation.

I'd hate to have one schema for Saxon and another for Xerces -- the same schema 
should work on both implementations.

Thoughs?

-jOrGe W.

On May 23, 2012, at 12:52 AM, Mukul Gandhi wrote:

> Hi Jorge,
>   Your example uses explicit casts on the XDM nodes, in xs:assert expressions.
> 
> If I remove explicit casts from the attribute node references in your
> examples, I get the expected results. i.e likeand   .
> 
> Since the xs:assert XDM nodes are typed, we don't need to explicitly
> cast them during XPath expression evaluation.
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Jorge Williams
>  wrote:
>> Hi Mukul,
>> 
>> Just updated.  Unfortunately,  I'm still getting the same error with the
>> same example.  Am I doing something wrong?  I'm attaching example and sample
>> documents.  good.xml should succeed for both schema, but it doesn't :-(
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> -jOrGe W.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> Mukul Gandhi
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: j-users-unsubscr...@xerces.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: j-users-h...@xerces.apache.org
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: j-users-unsubscr...@xerces.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: j-users-h...@xerces.apache.org

Re: Issue with XSD 1.1 assertions with dateTime and duration...

[Mukul Gandhi]

Hi Jorge,

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:15 AM, Jorge Williams
 wrote:
> Okay confirmed that the validation works if you remove the explicit 
> casts...but doesn't that mean that there's another bug?  Regardless as to 
> whether or not the explicit casts are needed the behavior of the validation 
> should be the same.

Without confirming with the XPath 2.0 spec (but I'll check!) I would
agree that even if the XDM nodes are typed, an explicit cast on the
node should still produce the same result. But this bug is of much
lesser severity, than the bug which has been solved upto now -- I say
this, because I don't see a point in doing explicit casts on nodes
which are already typed. But we should still try to solve this bug as
well :)

As a side note, an explicit cast on node which is already typed may be
useful in cases where, the type to which a cast is attempted is
related to the type of the node via inheritance (again we would need
to check the spec, what is the expected behavior in this case).



-- 
Regards,
Mukul Gandhi

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: j-users-unsubscr...@xerces.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: j-users-h...@xerces.apache.org