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

Re: Data binding as type definition

• To: simonstl@s... (Simon St.Laurent)
• Subject: Re: Data binding as type definition
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 16:40:44 -0400 (EDT)
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <4.2.0.58.20020611153659.01f52d58@p...> from "Simon St.Laurent" at Jun 11, 2002 04:18:56 PM

Simon St.Laurent scripsit:

> I don't believe I'd find the parts of foo to have any commonality, much 
> less "common"-ness.  I guess an enumeration or a regex with lots of OR in 
> it for the content could define some, but I prefer commonality to be a 
> pattern that emerges from the information.

I didn't think you would.  But how about this perfectly sensible and useful
type (which I give only in part):

{14, 18, 23, 28, 34, "Times Square"} : stations-on-the-#1-subway-line

These have little lexical commonality, but the underlying semantics is
very sensible (if a tad application-specific).

> Regular expressions are pretty good at describing a wide variety of lexical 
> commonalities.

But they also work for things that have almost no visible commonality at
all, so your argument proves too much!

-- 
John Cowan <jcowan@r...>     http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Data binding as type definition
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • Re: Data binding as type definition
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

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