[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Rich Salz wrote:
>
> > Would you be averse to something PSVI-like if it only meant returning a
> > much-restricted set of simple data types?
>
> If you only had primitive types, then don't you lose default values for
> complex types?
Complex types can have default values? Are you sure? My reading of the
spec (the definition of {value constraint} in section 3.3.2) is anything
but definitive, but I think it means that only simple element types can
have defaults. On the other hand "Schema Information Set Contribution:
Element Default Value" in section 3.3.5 seems to hint that complex types
can have defaults. Must have forgotten my schema spec decoder ring today
... mumble ... mumble ...
> In addition, once you limit to just primitives, it seems to me you can
> work purely on syntax/structure.
>
> So if you can use just syntax, and you can't omit complex containers,
> then you might as well work purely on syntax and throw out PSVI as a
> requirement for searching and querying XML documents. I'm in favor of that.
Do you mean syntax/structure of the instance? I'm not sure I follow.
-- Ron
|
