[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
... and it's the stance that Xerces-J takes too. Have no idea which flavour/version of Xerces Eran is referring to but Apache Xerces-J 2.9.1 (and likely many of its predecessors) accepts this instance as it should. Michael Glavassevich XML Parser Development IBM Toronto Lab E-mail: mrglavas@c... E-mail: mrglavas@a... "Michael Kay" <mike@s...> wrote on 12/30/2007 05:27:19 PM: > It's unusual for Xerces to be wrong on something so basic, but I > can't see any reason for rejecting this instance. The mapping from > the lexical space to the value space is only informally described, > but it's fairly clear to an intelligent reader that 0Fb8 and 0FB8 > are different lexical representations of the same actual value, and > this makes the instance valid. Certainly, that's the stance that Saxon takes. > > Michael Kay > http://www.saxonica.com/ > > From: Eran Balter [mailto:E.Balter@F...] > Sent: 30 December 2007 18:12 > To: xml-dev@l... > Subject: hexBinary type > Hi, > > I am validating the following instance: > > <hexBinary>0Fb8</hexBinary> > > with the following schema: > > <xsd:schema xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"> > <xsd:element name="hexBinary"> > <xsd:simpleType> > <xsd:restriction base="xsd:hexBinary"> > <xsd:enumeration value="0FB8"/> > </xsd:restriction> > </xsd:simpleType> > </xsd:element> > </xsd:schema> > > The instance has the small ?b? while the enumeration permits the capital ?B?. > > Is it a valid instance? (the standard claims: ?The canonical > representation for hexBinary is defined by prohibiting certain > options from the Lexical Representation (§3.2.15.1). Specifically, > the lower case hexadecimal digits ([a-f]) are not allowed.?). > libxml2 claims it?s valid, while xerces claims it?s not. > > TIA, > Eran
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |

Cart



