[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 03:48 PM 6/7/2002 +0100, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> > Compared to that approach, I can't say I find W3C XML Schema
> > particularly reliable as a source of type assertions.
>
>'particularly reliable'? You've identified a bug in the W3C XML
>Schema REC which means it fails to assign types correctly or
>consistently? This is news to me, please let the Working Group know
>ASAP.
Henry, if I thought I actually understood how complex types, complex
content, and block, final, and xsi:type interact I'd be happy to do
so. (And yes, I've tried quite hard to figure out those parts.)
As it stands, the spec _may_ be internally consistent, but I sure don't
think authors using W3C XML Schema will be as consistent/reliable.
I think the W3C XML Schema Working Group piled too many parts in the same
box, and a lot of things are just plain crushed.
And then I'd just love to be able to reliably identify non-Gregorian
calendar types...
Simon St.Laurent
"Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue
|
