[Bug 27845] New: msData\regex\reU6 should be valid

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 27845] New: msData\regex\reU6 should be valid

Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27845

            Bug ID: 27845
           Summary: msData\regex\reU6 should be valid
           Product: XML Schema Test Suite
           Version: 2006-11-06
          Hardware: PC
                OS: Windows NT
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Microsoft tests
          Assignee: [hidden email]
          Reporter: [hidden email]
        QA Contact: [hidden email]

This test is marked as invalid and it demands that unicode symbol 23F doesn't
match \w regex pattern. But actually it should because 23F according to [1]
belongs to Ll general category (not P, Z and C) and XSD standard [2] states:

    \w [#x0000-#x10FFFF]-[\p{P}\p{Z}\p{C}] (all characters except the set of
"punctuation", "separator" and "other" characters)

So this test actually should be turned to valid.

Could you please tell if you agree.

[1] http://www.unicode.org/Public/6.2.0/ucd/UnicodeData.txt
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 27845] msData\regex\reU6 should be valid

Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27845

Michael Kay <[hidden email]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[hidden email]

--- Comment #1 from Michael Kay <[hidden email]> ---
The metadata I have in my copy of this test reads:

<instanceTest name="reU6.i">
         <instanceDocument xlink:href="../msData/regex/reU6.xml"/>
         <expected validity="invalid" version="Unicode_4.0.0"/>
         <expected validity="valid" version="Unicode_6.0.0"/>
         <current date="2011-10-24" status="accepted"
bugzilla="http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13607"/>
         <prior date="2006-07-16" status="accepted"/>
      </instanceTest>

are you seeing the same? This shows that the test was modified as a result of
bug #13607 to give alternative results for Unicode 4 and Unicode 6.

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 27845] msData\regex\reU6 should be valid

Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27845

--- Comment #2 from Georgiy Rakov <[hidden email]> ---
(In reply to Michael Kay from comment #1)

> The metadata I have in my copy of this test reads:
>
> <instanceTest name="reU6.i">
>          <instanceDocument xlink:href="../msData/regex/reU6.xml"/>
>          <expected validity="invalid" version="Unicode_4.0.0"/>
>          <expected validity="valid" version="Unicode_6.0.0"/>
>          <current date="2011-10-24" status="accepted"
> bugzilla="http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13607"/>
>          <prior date="2006-07-16" status="accepted"/>
>       </instanceTest>
>
> are you seeing the same? This shows that the test was modified as a result
> of bug #13607 to give alternative results for Unicode 4 and Unicode 6.

Thank you very much.
Yes I can see this in CVS:
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/XML/xml-schema-test-suite/2004-01-14/xmlschema2006-11-06/msMeta/Regex_w3c.xml?rev=1.22;content-type=text%2Fplain

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 27845] msData\regex\reU6 should be valid

Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27845

--- Comment #3 from Georgiy Rakov <[hidden email]> ---
Could you please tell if I understand correctly the meaning of Target Milestone
field of the bug 13607. Does it mean that this bug is supposed to be fixed just
for XSD 1.1 test suite, but not for XSD 1.0 test suite.

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 27845] msData\regex\reU6 should be valid

Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27845

--- Comment #4 from Michael Kay <[hidden email]> ---
It might have meant something at the time, perhaps we were classifying test bug
as to which affected 1.0 and which only affected 1.1, but there is no active
maintenance plan for the test suite at the moment, so it's unlikely bugs will
be fixed (unless of course Oracle wants to provide some resources?)

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 27845] msData\regex\reU6 should be valid

Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27845

--- Comment #5 from Georgiy Rakov <[hidden email]> ---
My understanding was that the bug was already fixed at least for reU6 because
CVS contains fixed meta file you pointed. Is this understanding incorrect?

Anyway my question actually is - if the decision made in bug 13607 is
appropriate for conformance testing of XML Schema 1.0 implementation.

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 27845] msData\regex\reU6 should be valid

Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27845

--- Comment #6 from Michael Kay <[hidden email]> ---
That's a tough question to answer because you have to make a decision about how
to interpret the fact that XSD 1.0 references Unicode 3.1. I think most WG
members would say, go with a later version of Unicode if you want, but spec
lawyers might not agree. W3C of course does not award conformance certificates.

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 27845] msData\regex\reU6 should be valid

Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27845

--- Comment #7 from Georgiy Rakov <[hidden email]> ---
(In reply to Michael Kay from comment #6)
> That's a tough question to answer because you have to make a decision about
> how to interpret the fact that XSD 1.0 references Unicode 3.1. I think most
> WG members would say, go with a later version of Unicode if you want, but
> spec lawyers might not agree. W3C of course does not award conformance
> certificates.

Hello,

[1] contains following assertion:

Note:  [Unicode Database] is subject to future revision. For example, the
mapping from code points to character properties might be updated. All
·minimally conforming· processors ·must· support the character properties
defined in the version of [Unicode Database] that is current at the time this
specification became a W3C Recommendation. However, implementors are encouraged
to support the character properties defined in any future version.

Namely it states that implementors of conformant processors are encouraged to
support the character properties defined in any future version of Unicode; and
before it states that Unicode can be updated by changing the mapping from code
points to character properties.

I wonder if this implies that new Unicode version can define some character
property existing in the previous version by updating the mapping from code
points to this character property, and implementors of conformant processors
are allowed (even encouraged) to support this.

If this is true then I believe the decision made in bug 13607 can be legally
applied to XML Schema 1.0 not just to XML Schema 1.1 because this is what
actually happened to characters engaged in the tests presented in this bug.

Could you please tell if you agree with the reasoning above and with the
conclusion that the decision made in bug 13607 can be applied to XML Schema
1.0.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/

Thank you,
Georgiy.

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 27845] msData\regex\reU6 should be valid

Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27845

--- Comment #8 from Michael Kay <[hidden email]> ---
I can only tell you what I think I would do as an implementor, and that opinion
carries no more weight than your own. I would implement the most recent version
of Unicode, and interpret the spec as relating to that version, with
compatibility flags or options to do something different if I thought my
customer base needed them.

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.