• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Data binding as type definition
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 12:27:04 -0400
• In-reply-to: <200206111614.MAA14450@m...>
• References: <20020611145253.GA16310@t...>

At 12:15 PM 6/11/2002 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>In principle, it is known that a context-free grammar is strong enough.
>In practice, a regular grammar is probably strong enough, but may be ugly
>in particular cases of practical interest:  it is painful to write a regex
>that matches all integers between -200 and 55678.

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.

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: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• References:
  • Re: Data binding as type definition
    • From: amyzing@t... (Amelia A Lewis)
  • Re: Data binding as type definition
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• 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