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

Re: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar

• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
• Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:15:19 +1000
• References: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F80648449E@R...>

From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
 
> Yup, we've been here before. I probably have a list of issues with W3C XML Schema 
> that's as long as my arm but griping about some primitive types that nobody uses simply 
> because they represent clutter or an unclean aesthetic model ranks low on my list. 
 
> I've read Amelia's article and I consider it a tip of the iceberg. I've mentioned to Edd that 
> I'll probably write a follow up sometime in future which clarifies why I consider complaints 
> such as gHorribleKludge rants as minor issues. 
 
And, just to restate, the ISO DSDL effort is very interested in comments about WXS 
primitive and built-in datatypes.  Unless there are compelling cases why the primitive
and built-in types (sans type extension) are not a good working set of data types, I 
expect the ISO DSDL effort would not place a real high priority on making an alternative
datatype set (at least in 2003).  For example: the type derivation mechanisms (list, union,
restriction) miss out on units:-- is that more important in the scheme of things than 
Australian dates?

http://www.dsdl.org/  for comments

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

• References:
  • RE: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• Next by Date: Re: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• Previous by thread: RE: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• Next by thread: discarding WXS datatypes (was RE: modeling, validating)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread