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

Re: Data binding as type definition

• To: amyzing@t... (Amelia A Lewis)
• Subject: Re: Data binding as type definition
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 12:15:20 -0400 (EDT)
• Cc: jcowan@r... (John Cowan), xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <20020611145253.GA16310@t...> from "Amelia A Lewis" at Jun 11, 2002 10:52:53 AM

Amelia A Lewis scripsit:

> It follows that the first question to ask is "what is a type?"

Very well.  A (simple) type is a named set of values.

> Therefore, to create a data library definition language
> (which is what I think XML Schema part two should have been), one needs to
> create a language capable of describing validation algorithms.

In principle, it is known that a context-free grammar is strong enough.
In practice, a regular grammar is probably strong enough, but may be ugly
in particular cases of practical interest:  it is painful to write a regex
that matches all integers between -200 and 55678.

> If in fact language binding is a significant part of how a simple type is
> defined, 

I don't think anybody argues this.  Rather, the claim is that language
binding is an important *application* of types.

-- 
John Cowan <jcowan@r...>     http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Data binding as type definition
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • Re: Data binding as type definition
    • From: amyzing@t... (Amelia A Lewis)

• Prev by Date: RealSystem ML File
• Next by Date: RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• Previous by thread: New datatyping (was Re: Data binding as type definition)
• Next by thread: Re: Data binding as type definition
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread