• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 00:18:03 -0400
• In-reply-to: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F806D1971E@R...>

At 08:15 PM 6/18/2003 -0700, Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> > I don't think it adds any
> > more value than the current calendar disaster the WXS
> > datatypes have already created with gHorribleKludge.
>
>What disaster?

A set of so-called primitives that aren't very primitive, aren't very 
extensible, aren't very comparable, and (just for process bliss) showed up 
only at Proposed Recommendation.  Even if I choose not to use this dreck, 
its mere existence in a spec sanctioned by an organization that's supposed 
to know about these matters has made it difficult to build momentum around 
potentially saner alternatives.

You're quite welcome, as seems your usual practice, to dismiss this as mere 
aesthetic grumbling.  However, for a more thorough overview of the 
grotesque mess that W3C XML Schema datatypes have given the world, I'd 
strongly encourage reading:

http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/07/31/wxstypes.html

• References:
  • RE: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• Next by Date: Re: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• Previous by thread: RE: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• Next by thread: RE: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread