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

Re: ISSUE-49: is anySimpleType a Basic Patterns type?

From: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 13:34:15 +0100
Message-ID: <001801c6742e$109c6380$0600a8c0@RW>
To: <paul.downey@bt.com>, <public-xsd-databinding@w3.org>

Hi Paul,

Perhaps a better way of saying what I meant is:

If xs:anySimpleType is considered a problem, what about xs:anyType (because 
the latter seems harder than the former)?  xs:anyType is encountered in the 
construct <xs:element name="x"/>.

I didn't see an issue for this, but I might have missed it.

Pete.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
To: <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>; <public-xsd-databinding@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 12:57 PM
Subject: RE: ISSUE-49: is anySimpleType a Basic Patterns type?


Hi Pete

> My recollection is that xs:anySimpleType can be readily mapped to a 
> string.
> More importantly it can be easily parsed as if it was a regular
> element/attribute value.

"can" being the operative word here - "can" and "should" is the
bar for Advanced Patterns, whereas "is in practice" is the
bar we're using for the Basic Patterns.

You might, for example, like to try generating code from a Schema
using xs:anySimpleType with the Microsoft .NET 1.1 wsdl.exe
and xsd.exe tools ...

Paul


--
=============================================
Pete Cordell
Tech-Know-Ware Ltd
                         for XML to C++ data binding visit
                         http://www.tech-know-ware.com/lmx
                         (or http://www.xml2cpp.com)
=============================================
Received on Wednesday, 10 May 2006 12:34:31 GMT

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