I don't like the sound of where this is
going, and I don't think this is what Mike intends.
I think (hope) Mike is saying that he
is not able to validate that the logical value of his xs:decimal is what
he wants by using the min/maxInclusive, min/maxExclusive and total/fractionalDigits
facets. He needs the extra flexibility that a pattern facet provides.
Mike please can you provide some concrete
examples.
Regards
Steve Hanson
Architect, IBM Data Format Description Language (DFDL)
Co-Chair, OGF
DFDL Working Group
IBM SWG, Hursley, UK
smh@uk.ibm.com
tel:+44-1962-815848
From:
Tim Kimber/UK/IBM@IBMGB
To:
dfdl-wg@ogf.org,
Date:
16/05/2013 10:20
Subject:
Re: [DFDL-WG]
rationale for only allowing pattern facet on
xs:string type
Sent by:
dfdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org
I have some sympathy with Mike's point,
and I suspect that this question will arise regularly, for exactly the
reasons that Mike has stated.
My recollection of the reasoning is as follows:
- a DFDL processor needs to deal with the representation and the logical
values
- the representation is described by DFDL properties ( some of which can
be inherited from XSD properties via the use of 'implicit' )
- the logical values are described/constrained by xsd facets. These will
only be checked if validation is enabled ( or if the DFDL function dfdl:checkConstraints()
is used in an assert/discriminator ).
- a pattern facet on an xs:string element applies to the info set value.
- for a non-string element, it is not possible to apply a pattern facet
to the info set value
I think this issue could be overcome if we made the rule that the pattern
facet can only be used when representation='text' and it is applied to
the text representation, after any padding characters have been removed.
Some questions would then arise:
- does this check occur before or after nil processing?
- does a pattern of ".+," disallow empty elements, thus
preventing defaulting even when a default value has been supplied?
regards,
Tim Kimber, DFDL Team,
Hursley, UK
Internet: kimbert@uk.ibm.com
Tel. 01962-816742
Internal tel. 37246742
From: Steve
Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB
To: Mike
Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com>,
Cc: dfdl-wg@ogf.org,
dfdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org
Date: 16/05/2013
09:20
Subject: Re:
[DFDL-WG] rationale for only allowing pattern facet on
xs:string type
Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org
It was to prevent confusion between XML schema pattern facet and DFDL text
number and text calendar patterns.
Regards
Steve Hanson
Architect, IBM Data Format Description Language (DFDL)
Co-Chair, OGF
DFDL Working Group
IBM SWG, Hursley, UK
smh@uk.ibm.com
tel:+44-1962-815848
From: Mike
Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com>
To: dfdl-wg@ogf.org,
Date: 15/05/2013
18:51
Subject: [DFDL-WG]
rationale for only allowing pattern facet on xs:string
type
Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org
The pattern facet is allowed on all types in XML Schema.
DFDL says the XSDL pattern facet is for xs:string type elements only.
What is the rationale for this restriction?
We are encountering many constraints in format specs that are using XML
Schema regular expressions, where those regex are applied to numeric types
(e.g., xs:decimal for lattitude and longitude).
--
Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology | www.tresys.com
--
dfdl-wg mailing list
dfdl-wg@ogf.org
https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU--
dfdl-wg mailing list
dfdl-wg@ogf.org
https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU--
dfdl-wg mailing list
dfdl-wg@ogf.org
https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU