On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Dan Vint wrote:
>>At 10:54 PM 7/15/2003 +0800, Chin Chee-Kai wrote:
>>>Amendment Required because prohibiting xsd:nil does NOT
>>>equate with prohibiting empty content element.
>>>
>>>Suggested change:
>>>
>>>[R 94]: The nillable attribute MUST NOT be used.
>>> Empty content element MUST NOT be instantiated
>>> UNLESS it is expressly a user-intended indication
>>> to instantiate empty content for a given element.
>>
>>This isn't quite right. In schemas only elements of type string can be
>>presented as empty in a data stream without using the NIL attribute. The
>>user indication that nil is the appropriate interpretation is to use this
>>schema attribute (or we have to create our own method).
It depends on what was the intention of the rule. I took
Mark's response last time when he mentioned that [R 32]
(= [R 94]) already prohibits instantiating empty content
(which I didn't think that [R 32] as it stands says that)
to mean that [R 94]'s intent is to prohibit instantiating
elements with empty content. To complete that insufficiency
that I though [R 94] had, I suggested the above additional
line, to be interpreted whenever empty content can be
instantiated.
>>We need a statement more like this:
>>
>>Any element declared to have data, must not appear in a data stream as an
>>empty element.
No, for such situations, during generation, it is an invalid
instance already. On the receiving end, this will cause schema
validator to flag error based on, for example, a string pattern
that contains no empty string or a string restriction with
minLength="1" (See XML Schema Part 2 Section 4.3.2).
So this doesn't say more than what is already in place.
>>Elements declared as EMPTY may only appear in the data
>>stream as an empty element. This rule then prevents the use of the nillable
>>attribute in the schema definition and the corresponding xsi:nil attribute
>>in the date stream.
Sorry, I lost you there; I cannot find any term called "EMPTY"
in XML Schema. Are you referring to the EMPTY in DTD terminology?
If so, that's outside our discussion background on using XML
Schema to express UBL messages.
Best Regards,
Chin Chee-Kai
SoftML
Tel: +65-6820-2979
Fax: +65-6743-7875
Email: cheekai@SoftML.Net
http://SoftML.Net/
>>>On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Lisa-Aeon wrote:
>>>
>>> >>Rules for Voting: Each email will have only one rule in it, I will try to
>>> >>mark the rules that group with it, or rules that might duplicate it. The
>>> >>membership has 5 working days to bring forth objection or discussion, after
>>> >>the 5 working days, if there are no objections, the rule will be assumed to
>>> >>be "ACCEPTED" and be given to the LCSC for their implementation.
>>> >>
>>> >>Please Reply leaving first email in Reply.
>>> >>
>>> >>Voting period on this rule ends: July 22, 2003
>>> >>
>>> >>*******************************
>>> >>[R 94] The nillable attribute MUST NOT be used
>>> >>
>>> >>Note: Duplicate. See Rule 32.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>---
>>> >>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>>> >>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>>> >>Version: 6.0.498 / Virus Database: 297 - Release Date: 7/8/2003
>>>
>>
>>
>>You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-ndrsc/members/leave_workgroup.php
>>
>>