[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Henry S. Thompson scripsit:
> 1) There is no way to say in RNG "this schema must be
> deterministic", so there's no way for a normative requirement that you
> use schemas capable of reliable type assertions to be stated.
It's a work in progress. Makoto and Kohsuke and others are thinking about
exactly what works and what doesn't.
> 2) There is no notion in RNG of identifying the types that were
> assigned, reliably or not -- indeed the notion of type assignment
> doesn't occur in RNG. As you and many others so eloquently and
> repeatedly point out, RNG validation delivers a 1-bit result: valid or
> not, nothing else.
Validation is validation, type inference is type inference. As I posted
a moment ago, someone could write an RNG-based type inferencer for simple
types today (maybe even make it output the input, decorated with xsi:type
attributes?).
> Certainly a possiblity -- should SOAP wait until you or someone else
> works that out?
Why not?
--
John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_
|
