[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: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
• Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 04:29:49 +1000
• References: <002001c21153$d39cc6a0$2001a8c0@bryans> <3D0631B5.1030703@r...>

From: "Francis Norton" <francis@r...>

 > XSD types are great for Web Service (program-to-program) use cases in my 
> opinion - you get the choice of specifying language-level types (eg 
> xs:byte) where appropriate, or application-specific (eg xs:long, with 
> maxExclusive and minInclusive) where more appropriate. And for 
> human-to-human use cases, you can just leave them all as strings if 
> that's the functionality you want. So what's the problem?
 
So publishing people don't really have data that needs to be validated?  
With that kind of thinking, you should join the Schema WG :-)

Rick Jelliffe

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
    • From: Francis Norton <francis@r...>
  • Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
    • From: Matt Gushee <mgushee@h...>

• References:
  • RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
    • From: "bryan" <bry@i...>
  • Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
    • From: Francis Norton <francis@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• Next by Date: Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• 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