W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > August 2002

Re: Is the fixed-attribute on length-facet useless?

From: Rainer Becker <r.becker@Nitro-Software.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 14:46:35 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <819808E8E999D41196DA000102AF06CE0C63DB@SRV_KOM.NITRO>
To: "'xmlschema-dev@w3.org'" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Hallo Jeni,
 
thanks again, for your answers
 
>Hi Rainer,
>
>> (1) Would you agree, that the fixed-attribute is useless
>>      in connection with length?
>
>Yes.

Okay, to go go a step further, this should be regarded as an error
in the spec?
 
>
>> (2) What good is length anyways, is there a reason, why
>>      XML Schema 1.1 should still use it? 
> 
>It's only a shorthand for setting minLength and maxLength to the same
>value, I think, but in some cases that shorthand feels more natural. I
>don't see any big reason to drop it.

In my opinion, it causes misunderstandings, that are not necessary.
May sound a bit harsh, but I would favour dropping it ;-).
>
>> I see, that the fixed-attribute on minLength und maxLength is
>> vitally important. 
> 
>Personally, I don't see the purpose of the fixed attribute anywhere (I
>know what it does, just can't conceive of a situation in which it's a
>useful thing to do). If you could provide a use-case, I'd really
>appreciate it...

Yes, Jeni, vitally important was a bit exaggerated. Sorry for that.
Thinking about an use-case I get the notion of a password-type (maybe
with some sort of special feature ) in a schema, that serves as a 
base for derived types. A fixed-attribute on minLength would make sense, 
in order to prevent a user to derive a type by restriction, that would
allow a password with less than the minLength value.
Any use-case I can possibly think of goes in the direction, how to protect
a base type....
 
 
Bye
 
Rainer
 
 
Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2002 08:20:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:34 GMT