Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 03:48 PM 6/7/2002 +0100, Henry S. Thompson wrote: > > Compared to that approach, I can't say I find W3C XML Schema > > particularly reliable as a source of type assertions. > >'particularly reliable'? You've identified a bug in the W3C XML >Schema REC which means it fails to assign types correctly or >consistently? This is news to me, please let the Working Group know >ASAP. Henry, if I thought I actually understood how complex types, complex content, and block, final, and xsi:type interact I'd be happy to do so. (And yes, I've tried quite hard to figure out those parts.) As it stands, the spec _may_ be internally consistent, but I sure don't think authors using W3C XML Schema will be as consistent/reliable. I think the W3C XML Schema Working Group piled too many parts in the same box, and a lot of things are just plain crushed. And then I'd just love to be able to reliably identify non-Gregorian calendar types... Simon St.Laurent "Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue
|
