RE: [xml-dev] modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar

["Michael Rys" <mrys@microsoft.com>]

Well, then let's look at data types that have partial orders on their
value space (duration and date/time types), let's look at allowing
pattern facets to restrict the value space based on the lexical
representation on types that have more than one lexical representation
for the same value. That is only the tip of the iceberg. On the last
point: restrictions should be on the value space, if you have such a
beast.

However, XSD has these things now and I have to blame myself for not
screaming louder. To get the benefit of interoperability, you either
swallow the pill and work on mitigating its impact (see XQueries
duration types, or best practices papers that say" Don't use pattern
facets on non-string types) and work on improvements, or you go and
start from scratch. Some people cannot wait to get the latter done and
made the trade-off that the first approach is better short and midterm
and work towards making it improve for the longterm.

And Rick J: Adding units is not improving a schema language...

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:dareo@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 21:34 PM
> To: Simon St.Laurent; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] modeling, validating and documenting an xml
grammar
> 
> 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.
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]
> Sent: Wed 6/18/2003 9:18 PM
> To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] modeling, validating and documenting an xml
grammar
> 
> 
> 
> At 08:15 PM 6/18/2003 -0700, Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> > > I don't think it adds any
> > > more value than the current calendar disaster the WXS
> > > datatypes have already created with gHorribleKludge.
> >
> >What disaster?
> 
> A set of so-called primitives that aren't very primitive, aren't very
> extensible, aren't very comparable, and (just for process bliss)
showed up
> only at Proposed Recommendation.  Even if I choose not to use this
dreck,
> its mere existence in a spec sanctioned by an organization that's
supposed
> to know about these matters has made it difficult to build momentum
around
> potentially saner alternatives.
> 
> You're quite welcome, as seems your usual practice, to dismiss this as
> mere
> aesthetic grumbling.  However, for a more thorough overview of the
> grotesque mess that W3C XML Schema datatypes have given the world, I'd
> strongly encourage reading:
> 
> http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/07/31/wxstypes.html
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> 
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> 
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>