W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > December 2001

Re: NameValue and NameValueList data types

From: Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 11:35:41 -0500
To: "Jacek Kopecky <jacek" <jacek@systinet.com>
Cc: "peter.hendry" <peter.hendry@capeclear.com>, "xml-dist-app" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF5A395E12.7E55A1F1-ON85256B29.005BA07D@pok.ibm.com>

Whatever the implications for the SOAP design, I think you are somewhat
underestimating the reason for builtins such as positive integer in the
schema language.  Schema is NOT just used for validation.  It is equally
important as input to tools that do mappings to database languages,
programming languages, etc.  For these purposes, having well known and
agreed upon names for commonly used types is extremely important.
Otherwise, recognizing such types becomes a theorem proving exercise rather
than a simple recognition of type names (e.g. you would have to prove that
the facet restrictions on integer actually resulted in positive only.  If,
for example, someone restricted the lexical space to forbid minus signs,
that might do it, but I bet it would be a mess to detect.)

I think there is an analogy for SOAP encoding.  Where we standardize well
known type names, tools are more likely to be able to generate effective
programming language mappings automatically.  On the other hand, having too
many such well-known types makes the spec too big, and tends to get us in
the business of defining types that are more special purpose.  I think the
NameValue and NameValueList types under discussion are in the grey area
where you can make a good case either way.   Thanks very much.

Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Friday, 21 December 2001 11:47:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:17 UTC