Hi Jorge,
I did try to work on this bug report.
>From my point of view, I can confirm that this seems to be indeed a
bug. But it doesn't appears to be specific to Xerces's XSD 1.1
implementation. Without the , the codebase
exhibits the same bug and it is present within both Xerces XSD 1.1 and
Hi Jorge,
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Jorge Williams
wrote:
> You shouldn't need to define X at all, right?
I think declaration for element "X" in an XSD schema in this case,
would certainly be required (i.e xs:element ... etc) for an XML
instance element to be considered valid.
>...or am
You shouldn't need to define X at all, right? ...or am I missing something?
If you remove
>
from your schema, you'll see the same issue I amthe XML appears valid but
it's not.
The saxon implementation always reports an error, whether or not the Hi Jorge,
> Here's a different example
Hi Jorge,
Here's a different example I tried.
XSD 1.1 schema:
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema";>
And the following XML documents were validated by the above schema,
3 (this is reported as valid, since it uses the type
hmm..attachments didn't seem to go through?
On Apr 2, 2012, at 4:38 PM, Jorge Williams wrote:
Hello again, found another potential bug:
In the latest XSD 1.1 branch, it looks like simple type assertions are not
being enforced when the type is specified via the xsi:type attribute. I'm
atta