Imported from previous forum
I think there is an error in Relax NG schema. The following sample is not valid according this schema:
because optional element exponent has mandatory fieldOp. But I believe that the sample is correct. I propose to alter decFieldOp definition:
decFieldOp = element exponent { fieldOp? & other }?, element mantissa { fieldOp? & other }?
i.e. field operator should be optional as well as in fieldInstrContent and length definitions.
Konstantin Stepanyuk
Hi,
Your example is intentionally prohibited by the schema. You should use just in this case.
The form with individual operators specified is only applicable when you have at least one operator to specify.
/David
I think there is an error in Relax NG schema. The following sample is
not valid according this schema:
because optional element exponent has mandatory fieldOp. But I believe
that the sample is correct. I propose to alter decFieldOp definition:decFieldOp = element exponent { fieldOp? & other }?, element mantissa {
fieldOp? & other }?i.e. field operator should be optional as well as in fieldInstrContent
and length definitions.Konstantin Stepanyuk
Is the following example prohibited too?
should I declare the field as follows only?
Hi,
Your example is intentionally prohibited by the schema. You should use
just in this case.The form with individual operators specified is only applicable when you
have at least one operator to specify./David
I think there is an error in Relax NG schema. The following sample is
not valid according this schema:
because optional element exponent has mandatory fieldOp. But I believe
that the sample is correct. I propose to alter decFieldOp definition:decFieldOp = element exponent { fieldOp? & other }?, element mantissa
{ fieldOp? & other }?i.e. field operator should be optional as well as in fieldInstrContent
and length definitions.Konstantin Stepanyuk
Yes and yes.
Is the following example prohibited too?
should I declare the field as follows only?
Hi,
Your example is intentionally prohibited by the schema. You should use
just in this case.The form with individual operators specified is only applicable when
you have at least one operator to specify./David
I think there is an error in Relax NG schema. The following sample
is not valid according this schema:
because optional element exponent has mandatory fieldOp. But I
believe that the sample is correct. I propose to alter decFieldOp
definition:decFieldOp = element exponent { fieldOp? & other }?, element
mantissa { fieldOp? & other }?i.e. field operator should be optional as well as in
fieldInstrContent and length definitions.Konstantin Stepanyuk
Could you please give me an answer to another question according validation. Is it true that template definitions declared in xmlns=“http://www.fixprotocol.org/ns/fast/td/1.1” are valid only?
...i.e. can I omit xmlns or use some other URI?
Yes and yes.
Is the following example prohibited too?
should I declare the field as follows only?
Hi,
Your example is intentionally prohibited by the schema. You should
use just in this case.The form with individual operators specified is only applicable when
you have at least one operator to specify./David
I think there is an error in Relax NG schema. The following sample
is not valid according this schema:
because optional element exponent has mandatory fieldOp. But I
believe that the sample is correct. I propose to alter decFieldOp
definition:decFieldOp = element exponent { fieldOp? & other }?, element
mantissa { fieldOp? & other }?i.e. field operator should be optional as well as in
fieldInstrContent and length definitions.Konstantin Stepanyuk
Yes, for FAST 1.1 this is the only valid namespace URI. This is also enforced by the Relax NG schema by this particular declaration:
default namespace td = “http://www.fixprotocol.org/ns/fast/td/1.1”
/David
Could you please give me an answer to another question according
validation. Is it true that template definitions declared in
xmlns=“http://www.fixprotocol.org/ns/fast/td/1.1” are valid only?…
i.e. can I omit xmlns or use some other URI?