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

RE: A Call for Dialogue on XML Schema Part 1 and 2

• From: "David E. Cleary" <davec@p...>
• To: Xml-Dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:38:28 -0500

> This is better than I feared, but even so, why couldn't I use a
> different date format or decimal separator in the transfer syntax ?

Because early on in the development of XML Schema, the I18N WG pushed for
single or few lexical formats to improve interoperabilty and to lessen the
demands on creating schema processors. They certainly convinced me that this
was the way to go.

> The programming languages and operating systems have learned to cope
> with this, it's a very negative signal to send to make an exception for
> W3C XML Schema.

But does every operating system and every programming language support the
lexical formats you want to use? I do not think that anyone can argue that
restricting the lexical formats of a datatype makes it more dificult to
implement in any arbitrary programming language. For a specification called
too complex, this is a good thing, right?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Cleary
Progress Software

Sign up now for PROGRESS Worldwide Exchange June 3-7, 2001, Washington
DC.
http://www.progress.com/exchange

• References:
  • Re: A Call for Dialogue on XML Schema Part 1 and 2
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XML Hack Article wrt W3C XML Schema
• Next by Date: RE: Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XML Hack Article wrt W3C XML Schema
• Previous by thread: Re: A Call for Dialogue on XML Schema Part 1 and 2
• Next by thread: Re: A Call for Dialogue on XML Schema Part 1 and 2
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread