• From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
• To: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
• Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 13:28:02 -0500

Michael Kay scripsit:

> Yes, it's possible - you can restrict the lexical space of a simple type  
> without restricting its value space by using the pattern facet. But in  
> this case, one would have to ask "to what purpose". It's essentially  
> just imposing one's personal taste, rather like restricting numbers to  
> disallow a leading "+" sign. You can tell when someone is committed to  
> standards by the fact that they conform even when it goes against their  
> personal taste.

In this case, a new standard is being defined, and it's entirely
appropriate when referring to an existing standard to decide that the
full standard is inappropriate and subset it explicitly.

-- 
John Cowan  cowan@c...  http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Does anybody want any flotsam? / I've gotsam.
Does anybody want any jetsam? / I can getsam.
        --Ogden Nash, No Doctors Today, Thank You

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: #Announce published JXML schema, an XML schema for representing the JSON data model
    • From: "David Lee" <dlee@c...>

• References:
  • Re: #Announce published JXML schema, an XML schema forrepresenting the JSON data model
    • From: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
  • Re: #Announce published JXML schema, an XML schema forrepresenting the JSON data model
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
  • Re: #Announce published JXML schema, an XML schema forrepresenting the JSON data model
    • From: Michael Kay <mike@s...>