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

RE: ISSUE-9: union pattern for pending document

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:14:13 +0100
Message-ID: <2A7793353757DB4392DF4DFBBC95225504BFEABF@I2KM11-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <peter.hendry@capeclear.com>
Cc: <jon.calladine@bt.com>, <public-xsd-databinding@w3.org>

On 15 Jun 2006, at 13:12, Peter Hendry wrote:


> So during unmarshalling first xs:string would be 
> tried (which would always match) and xs:date would 
> not be tried. xs:date could only be matched 
> if xsi:type was present.

right!

> Is it worth pointing a subtlety like this out? 

Oh yes!

> I have seen it in a number of customer schemas 
> who have subsequently changed the order once they 
> are shown the light. When writing a union it is 
> best to define the memberTypes from most restrictive to least.

I'm moving towards proposing one pattern for each 
combination of built in types we allow in Basic Patterns
and/or adding a design consideration around this issue.

Paul
Received on Thursday, 15 June 2006 15:18:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:20:37 GMT