[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: bryan <bry@i...>
• Subject: Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• From: Francis Norton <francis@r...>
• Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 18:21:57 +0100
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• References: <002001c21153$d39cc6a0$2001a8c0@bryans>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530

Hi Bryan,

bryan wrote:

>And if the user interface is an xml editor into which the user enters
>the content for their E-Catalog or what have you. To my mind the person
>using the editor is still a user. 
>  
>
then you have to employ a human to interpret the dates and validate the 
numbers. Either that or specify the fields as strings, possibly 
incorporating loose validation via regular expressions, if you have a 
recipient program that expects that level of validation.

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?

Francis.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
    • From: "bryan" <bry@i...>
  • Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

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

• Prev by Date: RE: (more details) embedding xml schema in an instance doc
• 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