Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

6704Re: [soapbuilders] WSDL soap:binding enhancement for SOAP version?

Expand Messages
  • noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
    Jan 7, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Henry is not on soapbuilders, so I am forwarding this note for him (with
      his permission). For those who don't know, Henry is an editor of the
      schema structures spec, and is expert in the sort of details we're
      discussing.

      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036
      Lotus Development Corp. Fax: 1-617-693-8676
      One Rogers Street
      Cambridge, MA 02142
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------



      ----- Forwarded by Noah Mendelsohn/CAM/Lotus on 01/07/2002 02:28 PM -----


      ht@... (Henry S. Thompson)
      01/07/2002 08:28 AM


      To: Noah Mendelsohn/CAM/Lotus@Lotus
      cc: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com, andrewl@...
      Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] WSDL soap:binding enhancement for SOAP version?


      noah_mendelsohn@... writes:

      > Andrew Layman writes:
      >
      > > Unless this has been corrected recently, the
      > > default "value" supplied by a schema is not
      > > actually the value-space value but rather
      > > the literal lexical representation
      > > appearing in the schema
      >
      > and Jacek Kopecky writes:
      >
      > > from my reading of XML Schema, especially
      > > section 3.2.1 [1], and in particular the
      > > sentence "Note that it is values that are
      > > supplied and/or checked, not strings," I
      > > understand that the default value is from
      > > value space, not from lexical space.
      >
      > Amazingly, my reading of the spec is that you are both right. As best I
      > can tell, Jacek is correctly citing [1], and then at [2] there is the
      > statement:
      >
      > "Validation Rule: Attribute Locally Valid
      >
      > For an attribute information item to be locally ·valid· with respect to
      an
      > attribute declaration all of the following must be true:
      > 1 The declaration must not be ·absent· (see Missing Sub-components
      (§5.3)
      > for how this can fail to be the case).
      > 2 Its {type definition} must not be absent.
      > 3 The item's ·normalized value· must be locally ·valid· with respect to
      > that {type definition} as per String Valid (§3.14.4).
      > 4 The item's ·actual value· must match the value of the {value
      > constraint}, if it is present and fixed."
      >
      > See particularly clause 4, which refers to "actual value". The
      definition
      > of "actual value" is [3]: "[Definition:] The phrase actual value is
      used
      > to refer to the member of the value space of the simple type definition
      > associated with an attribute information item which corresponds to its
      > ·normalized value·. This will often be a string, but may also be an
      > integer, a boolean, a URI reference, etc. This term is also occasionally
      > used with respect to element or attribute information items in a
      document
      > being ·validated·."
      >
      > So, surely Jacek is right. But no! At [4] we find the information set
      > contribution, which is:
      >
      > "Schema Information Set Contribution: Attribute Validated by Type
      >
      > If clause 3 of Attribute Locally Valid (§3.2.4) applies with respect to
      an
      > attribute information item, in the post-schema-validation infoset the
      > attribute information item has a property:
      >
      > [schema normalized value] -- The ·normalized value· of the item as
      > ·validated·."
      >
      > ...and at [5] we find the definition of normalized value:
      >
      > "[Definition:] The normalized value of an element or attribute
      information
      > item is an ·initial value· whose white space, if any, has been
      normalized
      > according to the value of the whiteSpace facet of the simple type
      > definition used in its ·validation·:"
      >
      > So Andrew is right too!
      >
      > If I have understood this correctly, comparison of "fixed"
      specifications
      > is based on the value space, but the standard information set
      contribution
      > is the input string (lexical form) after whitespace handling has been
      > done.
      >
      > Henry: Do I have this right?

      Yes.

      > If so, is this all intentional?

      Yes. Without getting in to implementation details, how could we have
      gone further wrt the PSVI [schema normalized value] property?

      > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#Attribute_Declaration_details
      > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#section-Attribute-Declaration-Validation-Rules
      > [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#key-vv
      > [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#section-Attribute-Declaration-Information-Set-Contributions
      > [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#key-nv

      ht
      --
      Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
      W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
      2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
      Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@...
      URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
    • Show all 13 messages in this topic