[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>
> Yup, we've been here before. I probably have a list of issues with W3C XML Schema
> that's as long as my arm but griping about some primitive types that nobody uses simply
> because they represent clutter or an unclean aesthetic model ranks low on my list.
> I've read Amelia's article and I consider it a tip of the iceberg. I've mentioned to Edd that
> I'll probably write a follow up sometime in future which clarifies why I consider complaints
> such as gHorribleKludge rants as minor issues.
And, just to restate, the ISO DSDL effort is very interested in comments about WXS
primitive and built-in datatypes. Unless there are compelling cases why the primitive
and built-in types (sans type extension) are not a good working set of data types, I
expect the ISO DSDL effort would not place a real high priority on making an alternative
datatype set (at least in 2003). For example: the type derivation mechanisms (list, union,
restriction) miss out on units:-- is that more important in the scheme of things than
Australian dates?
http://www.dsdl.org/ for comments
Cheers
Rick Jelliffe
|
