Just re-read the relevant clause in the spec a few times and came to the 
conclusion that Xerces indeed has a bug. That is, the quoted conclusion is =

not correct, and the testcase attached to 18405 should be valid.

Thanks,
Sandy Gao
XML Parser Development, IBM Canada
(1-905) 413-3255
sandygao@c...




"Tishkin, Eugene" <etishkin@m...> 
Sent by: xmlschema-dev-request@w...
11/09/2005 09:31 AM

To
<xmlschema-dev@w...>
cc

Subject
unique constraint interpretation.






Hi,
 
The below is the comment from Xerces parser BUG 18405 report:
==========================
======================= 
"3 For each node in the
=B7target node set=B7
all of the
{fields},
with that node as the context node, evaluate to either an empty node-set 
or a 
node-set with exactly one member, which must have a simple type."

The target node set is the set of nodes on which the selector is matched. 
Note 
that this condition must hold for *any* identity constraint; only in 
bullet 4 
of the tableau are the differences between key and unique described. 
Therefore, it seems clear that, if a selector matches, then either all of 
the 
fields must match or none of them must match; even for xsd:unique, you 
can't 
have some fields matching.
==========================
==========================
=======
 
Especially I'm interested in the conclusion:
 
"Therefore, it seems clear that, if a selector matches, then either all of =

the 
fields must match or none of them must match; even for xsd:unique, you 
can't 
have some fields matching."
 
Is this a correct interpretation of unique constraint? 
 
Regards,
Eugene
 


This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information. Any 
distributing, copying or reliance upon the contents of this e-mail by 
anyone other 
than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received 
this e-mail 
accidentally, please delete it and notify the sender. Although this 
message has been 
screened for viruses, we cannot guarantee that our virus scanner will 
detect all 
viruses and take no responsibility for any damage or loss that may be 
caused by its 
contents.