Re: Clarification on enumerations

On Sat, 2002-07-20 at 10:26, Jeni Tennison wrote:
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
> > Well, there are many in the WG (myself included) who felt that the
> > pattern facet should only apply the xs:string (and types derived
> > from it). That is, we wanted to say that the pattern facet, like all
> > others (with the exception of whiteSpace :-) applies to the value
> > space (since for xs:string the value and lexical spaces are
> > identical). However, "we" lost the battle and pattern applies to all
> > types...hence the oddity of how it is described...as effecting the
> > value space by operating on the lexical space.
> 
> Personally, I think it's very useful having something constraining the
> lexical space. It's handy having something that can articulate rules
> like "a decimal with exactly two decimal places" or "a duration that
> only specifies days and time", so I'm glad that you lost that
> particular battle :)

So do I! Patterns are syntactical and I think that this makes sense to
get them working on the lexical space....

That being said, facets (I mean all of them) could hold an attribute
(with a default value) saying if the schema designer wants to get them
working on the lexical or on the value space. We could thus say that we
want a xs:value working on the lexical space without having to use a
xs:pattern for this or a maximum of 3 digits on the lexical space or on
the contrary a pattern on the value space which could be useful in some
cases.

My 0.02 Euros

Eric
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Jeni
> 
> ---
> Jeni Tennison
> http://www.jenitennison.com/
> 
> 
-- 
See you in San Diego.
                               http://conferences.oreillynet.com/os2002/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       http://xmlfr.org            http://dyomedea.com
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Saturday, 20 July 2002 04:59:04 UTC