W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xsd-databinding@w3.org > January 2006

Re: ISSUE-5: Open Enumerated Type

From: Ed Day <edday@obj-sys.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 10:23:35 -0500
Message-ID: <059401c615f9$d3342dd0$4800000a@objsys1>
To: <paul.downey@bt.com>, <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>, <public-xsd-databinding@w3.org>

Another issue related to enumerations that I would like to see the group
consider is how to map enumerations that contain non alpha-numeric
characters.  For example, I have seen schemas that contain enumerations of
things like #, @, $, etc. in various combinations.  The typical response by
many binding tools is to replace these characters with underscores (_) which
leads to some very cryptic and confusing names.  If the group could come up
with some standard way of dealing with this situation, it would be great.

Regards,

Ed Day
Objective Systems, Inc.
http://www.obj-sys.com


----- Original Message -----
From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
To: <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>; <public-xsd-databinding@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 5:35 AM
Subject: RE: ISSUE-5: Open Enumerated Type



Pete,

> This may have been discussed, but from what I have seen, xs:unions in
> general are badly supported by binding tools.  Hence this issue refers
> to a particular case of the more general xs:union issue.

It might be worth my raising a separate issue for xs:union.

> I would hope that this situation would improve in future!
>
> I'm not in a position to know what the criteria for a basic
> or advanced feature are.

This is in essence my motivation for raising this as an issue.
Given the timing, I'd imagine the Basic patterns would record
the art of the possible with current mainstream tools.

However, this is a common and very useful pattern of Schema,
so documenting it with a caveat may still be of value and
isn't well supported may serve to improve implementations?

> From my experience though, un-extensible enumerated types is
> one of the nastier versioning traps that XSD allows people to
> fall into (and they do), and for that reason it would be
> appealing to not have it too buried!!!

big +1

Paul
Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2006 15:23:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:20:36 GMT