• From: Dean Roddey <roddey@u...>
• To: <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 13:32:22 -0400

"While I like this proposal and think there is a definite need for it, I would
rather see it as an addition to, rather than a replacement of, a simple data
type attribute.

This is not a technical issue, merely a usability one.  It has simply been my
experience that explaining what a function is to non-technical or moderately
technical people is very difficult; explaining what a data type is, is not.

Furthermore, I suspect that 80-90% of the data typing needs in a document can
be
met by a subset of the DCD data types. I am therefore reluctant to get rid of
such a simple method, especially since data type attributes would be easily
reusable outside of schema files:"

I think I agree with that. I saw the validation scheme more as a way to do
advance stuff and which could,
if built into a parser, provide a way to do validation for any blessed W3C
typing scheme as well (behind the
scenes by just putting in a function bundle for those types and making the
parser aware of the fact that these
special types have associated validation functions out there to use.)

----------------------------------------
Dean Roddey
Software Weenie
IBM Center for Java Technology - Silicon Valley
roddey@u...

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Prev by Date: RE: Questions on DCD
• Next by Date: Re: EOC/SOX: element<->class mapping
• Previous by thread: RE: Questions on DCD
• Next by thread: Re: was Re: XML and Objects
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread