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

Re: Announce: XML Schema,

• To: "John Cowan" <jcowan@r...>
• Subject: Re: Announce: XML Schema,
• From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@a...>
• Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 00:07:57 -0400
• Cc: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>,"'xml-dev'" <xml-dev@l...>
• References: <200206270331.XAA07306@m...>

John Cowan wrote:

[[
Jonathan Borden scripsit:

> > Sure, but that doesn't make façade *wrong*.  Are you going to say that
> > <text>His attitude is a mere façade</text> must not validate against
> > a database library with a "text-en" datatype?
> >
>
> I suppose that if I went to the trouble to specify "text-en" that I
probably
> wouldn't want that to validate.

But why not?  It is unquestionably an English sentence, even if one of
the words in it has an unusual orthography.
]]

I thought we agreed that validating according to "text-en" wasn't a reliable
way to determine whether that character sequence is an "English sentence"?

My impression is that this sort of test is simply a way to see if a
particular character sequence consists only of characters in a given set of
characters. I am tempted to define what I expect "text-en" to specify is
something like the set of characters learned in (an American or English)
school as belonging to the "English alphabet" -- by "school" I mean a grade
school, not a graduate school.

Jonathan

• References:
  • Re: Announce: XML Schema,
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XHTML modularisation causes strange error with MSXML
• Next by Date: Re: Are there any limits? (WAS: RE: XMLSchema for object programmers: was Announce: XML Schema)
• Previous by thread: Re: English sentences, was: Re: Announce:XML Schema,
• Next by thread: Re: Announce: XML Schema,
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread