• To: "'Simon St.Laurent'" <simonstl@s...>,"'John Cowan'" <jcowan@r...>
• Subject: RE: Data binding as type definition
• From: "Aaron Skonnard" <aarons@d...>
• Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:26:41 -0600
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <4.2.0.58.20020611124224.020614a8@p...>
• Organization: DevelopMentor
• Reply-to: <aarons@d...>

> At 12:37 PM 6/11/2002 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> >Simon St.Laurent scripsit:
> >
> > > I guess I think of those constraints as bonus things you can do 
> > > once you have identified a type, not as something intrinsic to a 
> > > particular type.  Sort of like constraints applied through 
> > > get/set accessors in Java.
> >
> >Note my definition of type: a named class of values.  (The 
> >name can be a complex name, of course, like "non-negative 
> >integer" or "integer between -200 and 55678".)
> 
> Yep.  That's completely different from my notion of type (for 
> XML, anyway), which is a set of values with a common lexical 
> representation.  That representation can include both markup 
> and textual representation.

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.

-aaron
http://staff.develop.com/aarons

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Data binding as type definition
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Data binding as type definition
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

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

• Prev by Date: Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• Next by Date: Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
• Previous by thread: Re: Data binding as type definition
• Next by thread: Re: Data binding as type definition
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread