[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box

• To: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Subject: Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 12:38:55 -0400
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <200206111630.MAA14765@m...>
• References: <4.2.0.58.20020611113302.01ec0120@p...>

At 12:30 PM 6/11/2002 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>Simon St.Laurent scripsit:
>
> > >  If the schema
> > >language or an individual schema required some cryptic, proprietary
> > >format I would agree. But any educated person can *understand*
> > >'2002-06-11' without too much effort.
> >
> > I dunno.  Is that June 11 or November 6?  A normalization that makes sense
> > to your kind of educated person may not make sense to mine.
>
>Oh, come on, Simon, don't overstate your case.  *Nobody* uses year-day-month
>dates, thank Ghu.

Heh.  I never use year-first notation at all, so I have no way of knowing 
what follows.

> > It has everything to do with whether normalization is good or
> > necessary.  As W3C XML Schema enforces normalization, those types are also
> > polluted by this for purposes of this conversation.
>
>In document-centric contexts, the right application is probably something
>like this:
>
>Julius Caesar was assassinated on <date gDate="-43-03-13">the ides of
>March, 710 A.U.C.</date>,
>
>So the content tells us the Roman date, and the gDate attribute (of type
>gDate, obviously) gives us the Gregorian equivalent.  Only the latter
>has an XSD type.

I think I'm even less happy about your attribute annotation approach.  It 
makes it look like we actually have a clue, when in fact we rarely do.  Why 
not specify a timezone while we're at it?  Oh, right, those only appeared 
around 1850.

Simon St.Laurent
"Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• References:
  • Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• Next by Date: Re: Data binding as type definition
• Previous by thread: Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• Next by thread: Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread