• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Data binding as type definition
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 15:35:40 -0400
• In-reply-to: <006001c2117d$ea5ca700$0400a8c0@skonnardt20>
• References: <4.2.0.58.20020611124224.020614a8@p...>

At 01:26 PM 6/11/2002 -0600, Aaron Skonnard wrote:
>I agree with John that a type is a named value-space. I also agree with
>Simon that for type to be useful in XML, its value-space must correspond
>to a well-defined lexical-space. This is exactly what XML Schema
>provides.

It provides it through a very limited set of transformations from lexical 
to value which have their own peculiarities, and blesses the value space 
almost exclusively.

This is inadequate for those of us who care about lexical flexibility, and 
your supposed agreement is effectively strong disagreement.

Simon St.Laurent
"Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Data binding as type definition
    • From: "Aaron Skonnard" <aarons@d...>

• References:
  • Re: Data binding as type definition
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • RE: Data binding as type definition
    • From: "Aaron Skonnard" <aarons@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Data binding as type definition
• Next by Date: RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• Previous by thread: Re: Data binding as type definition
• Next by thread: RE: Data binding as type definition
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread