On 17 July 2014 21:19, sshanmug wrote:
> Thanks for the response. I added the assert and it's working.
> Basically I added the following assert
>
>
That shall also work. Its upto you. If you wish to save few keystrokes, you
can opt for the I mentioned.
--
Regards,
Mukul Gandhi
Thanks for the response. I added the assert and it's working.
Basically I added the following assert
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-xml-project.6118.n7.nabble.com/Adding-XSD-1-1-assertions-to-a-complex-type-tp41267p41274.html
Sent from the Xerces - J - Users mailing list archiv
On 15 July 2014 21:38, sshanmug wrote:
> If I have more than one complex types extending from abstract-comp-type,
> how do I add validation to check if all the sub types have an element named
> element1?
>
>
I think, this can be simply accomplished by having following assertion
within your ty
I am using the XSD 1.1 and trying to add assertions to the complex types.
I have an abstract complex type and another concrete complex type extending
the abstract complex type.
For example:
I am using the XSD 1.1 and trying to add assertions to the complex types.
I have an abstract complex type and another concrete complex type
extending the abstract complex type.
For example:
Just got around to testing. Works!
Thank you,
-jOrGe W
On Jun 16, 2012, at 3:37 AM, Mukul Gandhi wrote:
> Hi Jorge,
> The fixes for this issue are now available on SVN (revision,
> 1350884). You may verify as appropriate.
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Jorge Williams
> wrote:
>>> If
Hi Jorge,
The fixes for this issue are now available on SVN (revision,
1350884). You may verify as appropriate.
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Jorge Williams
wrote:
>> If making explicit casts in this case, helps users we would certainly
>> try to implement it :)
>
> It certainly will help m
(Inline)
On Jun 15, 2012, at 1:08 AM, Mukul Gandhi wrote:
> Hi Jorge,
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Jorge Williams
> wrote:
>
>> I couldn't find anything in the standard that says that implementation must
>> have typed nodes
>
> The XSD 1.1 asse
Hi Jorge,
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Jorge Williams
wrote:
> I couldn't find anything in the standard that says that implementation must
> have typed nodes
The XSD 1.1 assertions spec here describes how the XDM data model for
assertions need to be constructed,
http://ww
There is a case where handling the cast correctly is critically important:
when you are dealing with an implementation where nodes are not typed. In this
case, you *always* have to do a cast to inform the validator of the type of a
particular value. The Saxon implementation works this way, a
Hi Michael & all,
Here are few new thoughts I've about these issues, and writing them
to list here for records.
The XSD type xs:dateTime has the parent type as xs:anyAtomicType. So
if an XDM node reference already has a type annotation as xs:dateTime,
I see no good value to do an explicit cast
Hi Michael,
Surely, the bugs reported in this mail thread were in PsychoPath
XPath engine. PsychoPath engine does claim conformance to the W3C
XPath 2.0 test suite, and at the moment we do pass 100% of this test
suite.
Incidentally, the issues highlighted in this mail thread with respect
to cer
, 2012, at 4:10 PM, Mukul Gandhi wrote:
>
> > Hi Michael,
> >I believe, the W3C's XML Schema 1.1 test suite has a significant
> > coverage for XSD 1.1 assertions.
> >
> > But I would agree, that tests like those cited within this
> > thread and pr
's XML Schema 1.1 test suite has a significant
> coverage for XSD 1.1 assertions.
>
> But I would agree, that tests like those cited within this
> thread and probably some others as well could be added to W3C XSD 1.1
> test suite, for the reasons you've mentioned.
>
On May 24, 2012, at 3:45 PM, Mukul Gandhi wrote:
Thanks, Jorge for bringing these issues to the list :)
No problem. Thanks for addressing these issues so quickly!
-jOrGe W.
Hi Michael,
I believe, the W3C's XML Schema 1.1 test suite has a significant
coverage for XSD 1.1 assertions.
But I would agree, that tests like those cited within this
thread and probably some others as well could be added to W3C XSD 1.1
test suite, for the reasons you've
I'm curious what kind of coverage there is for assertions in the W3C's XML
Schema 1.1 test suite. If it were enhanced to cover more scenarios like
this one and others we've been discussing on this list lately it would
help improve interoperability.
Thanks.
Michael Glavassevich
XML Technologies
Interestingly, related to the addition dateTime's evaluation bug the
PaychoPath XPath2 engine also had a bug doing subtraction operations
on the same data types.
For e.g, the following XSD 1.1 validation didn't work correctly,
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema";>
Hi Michael,
> Can this issue with the explicit cast be fixed in PsychoPath?
Definitely, fixing this issue is doable within PsychoPath engine. I'll
try to study, and possibly fix this as soon as I can or write
something on the list with my findings.
--
Regards,
Mukul Gandhi
--
Hi Mukul,
Regardless of the severity I agree with Jorge that it's a pain if you
can't write an XPath expression which works with both (Xerces and Saxon)
implementations. Can this issue with the explicit cast be fixed in
PsychoPath?
Thanks.
Michael Glavassevich
XML Technologies and WAS Develop
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
> sho
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
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
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.
On May 22, 2012, at 3:46 PM, Mukul Gandhi
Hi Jorge,
I did try to fix this issue, and the changes for this are now
committed to SVN.
Xerces's XPath2 engine had a bug doing addition of xs:dateTime and
xs:dayTimeDuration values, which I hope is now fixed completely.
Please feel free to report, if you find anything still incorrect.
On Fr
On May 17, 2012, at 2:56 PM, Mukul Gandhi wrote:
> Hi Jorge,
> With my quick analysis of your use-case, I can conclude that this
> may be a possible bug (and quite likely in our XSD 1.1 XPath2 engine).
>
> As a workaround, I can find the following expression to be working
> correctly though,
>
Hi Jorge,
With my quick analysis of your use-case, I can conclude that this
may be a possible bug (and quite likely in our XSD 1.1 XPath2 engine).
As a workaround, I can find the following expression to be working
correctly though,
(xs:dateTime - xs:dateTime) le xs:dayTimeDuration
You may rep
Hey Guys,
I'm working off of the latest 1.1 branch. I have the following schema:
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema";
xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema";
xmlns:tst="http://www.rackspace.com/test/simple";
targetNamespace="http://www.rackspace.com/test/simple";>
28 matches
Mail list logo
