Re: Please no UOM (was Re: maps)
Maybe there is an 80/20 point in there somewhere. It seems like breaking complex values into simpler ones makes good sense lexically. Also, it makes good sense in a value space. Combining these also seems to make good sense. So the question is what are the limits to defining value. What if you drew the line at conversion between types? This way, defining a value space for a "type" or "unit" of a type would be useful for sorting or comparison or other operations only of that type. Conversion or comparison between types would be the 20% that would be avoided. Again, theoretically it sounds good, but I don't know how useful this is in markup-land. Once you get to a type like dates you need co-occurrence constraints between units again... (e.g. if Feb then max days = 28 unless leap year...)-- then it all seems like a bad idea. Agreeingly... Jeff Rafter Defined Systems http://www.defined.net XML Development and Developer Web Hosting
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format