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

Re: Tags and Types (was Re: Re: maps)

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Tags and Types (was Re: Re: maps)
• From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 14:07:23 -0700
• In-reply-to: <00c801c23d80$d1c21160$0201a8c0@n...>
• References: <00c801c23d80$d1c21160$0201a8c0@n...> <E17c9p6-0007Ts-00@m...>

Jonathan Borden wrote:

> Different formats each have their advantages. The clear advantage of
> explicit tags, is that the meaning is less ambiguous. e.g.
>
> <date>
>     <day>02</day>
>     <month>02</month>
>     <year>01</year>
> </date>
>
> vs.
>
> "02-02-01"

In the first example, did you mean 1 CE or 2001 CE?
If the former, under which calendar should the day
and month be interpreted?

Sorry, I really don't see any decrease in ambiguity
in the first form.


--Joe English

  jenglish@f...

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Tags and Types (was Re: Re: maps)
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
  • Re: Tags and Types (was Re: Re: maps)
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@a...>

• References:
  • Re: Tags and Types (was Re: Re: maps)
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@a...>
  • Re: Tags and Types (was Re: Re: maps)
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Iceberg development (was Re: maps)
• Next by Date: Re: Tags and Types (was Re: Re: maps)
• Previous by thread: Re: Tags and Types (was Re: Re: maps)
• Next by thread: Re: Tags and Types (was Re: Re: maps)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread