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

Re: Please no UOM (was Re: maps)

• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Please no UOM (was Re: maps)
• From: "Jeff Rafter" <jeffrafter@d...>
• Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 20:39:49 -0500
• References: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C1020ED520@r...>

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

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

• Prev by Date: RE: maps
• Next by Date: RE: Please no UOM (was 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