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

Re: Please no UOM (was Re: maps)

• To: joshuaa@m... (Joshua Allen)
• Subject: Re: Please no UOM (was Re: maps)
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 23:32:08 -0400 (EDT)
• Cc: simonstl@s... (Simon St.Laurent), liam@w... (Liam Quin), xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C1020ED520@r...> from "Joshua Allen" at Aug 04, 2002 02:54:35 PM

Joshua Allen scripsit:
> 
> (Not that anyone here is advocating this, but just in case...)
>  
> Regular expressions that enforce syntactic patterns for particular
> units of measure are fine, but I would strongly caution against trying to
> assign schema constraints based on the actual values (other than range
> constraints to specify valid values, which I would classify as regular
> expressions anyway).  Even worse are co-occurence constraints on the
> values, and worst of all are constraints that involve UOM translations.

Well, I think the rest of your rant is quite convincing on the matter of
translations, but I don't see where your argument against co-occurrence
constraints comes from, especially for quantized units.  

-- 
John Cowan                                <jcowan@r...>     
http://www.reutershealth.com              http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Yakka foob mog.  Grug pubbawup zink wattoom gazork.  Chumble spuzz.
    -- Calvin, giving Newton's First Law "in his own words"

• References:
  • RE: Please no UOM (was Re: maps)
    • From: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Keeping ISO 8879 Alive (was RE: Markup perspective not code)
• Next by Date: Re: maps
• Previous by thread: Re: Please no UOM (was Re: maps)
• Next by thread: Re: Please no UOM (was Re: maps)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread