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

Re: Re: Code List Value Validation

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Re: Code List Value Validation
• From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@a...>
• Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 15:03:29 +1000
• Cc: ubl-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <443B3502.6040600@j...>
• References: <88aed1ea0604070509x36849a9blafb60298e835177@m...> <7.0.1.0.2.20060410220233.028d2810@C...> <443B2C83.3020502@a...> <443B3502.6040600@j...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (X11/20040502)

Jeff Rafter wrote:

> I have often heard it repeated that simpleType built-ins were never 
> intended for widespread use and that the assumption was all 
> simpleTypes would be derived. I have wondered if that sentiment 
> represents the whole of the WG or not...

Well, a datatype like String doesn't make much sense unless you derive 
from it, I suppose.

But I cannot imagine any WG member had the expectation that the built-in 
types would not be good enough for many uses, quite the reverse. That is 
why there are so many built-in derived types.

I have never heard anyone make that comment, btw.  Maybe someone trying 
to downplay the RELAX NG experience, where people seem fairly happy with 
just the built-in XSD datatypes grafted onto a different grammar (given 
that there is already a ind of pattern matching available by another 
mechanism.)

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

• References:
  • Code List Value Validation
    • From: "Fraser Goffin" <goffinf@g...>
  • Re: Code List Value Validation
    • From: "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@C...>
  • Re: Re: Code List Value Validation
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@a...>
  • Re: Re: Code List Value Validation
    • From: Jeff Rafter <lists@j...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: Code List Value Validation
• Next by Date: Documenting mapping to XML message
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: Code List Value Validation
• Next by thread: Re: [XPath] is it legal ?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread