[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Amelia A Lewis scripsit:
> It follows that the first question to ask is "what is a type?"
Very well. A (simple) type is a named set of values.
> Therefore, to create a data library definition language
> (which is what I think XML Schema part two should have been), one needs to
> create a language capable of describing validation algorithms.
In principle, it is known that a context-free grammar is strong enough.
In practice, a regular grammar is probably strong enough, but may be ugly
in particular cases of practical interest: it is painful to write a regex
that matches all integers between -200 and 55678.
> If in fact language binding is a significant part of how a simple type is
> defined,
I don't think anybody argues this. Rather, the claim is that language
binding is an important *application* of types.
--
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_
|
