W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > June 2004

Re: Schema limits and ordering

From: Dean Hiller <dean@xsoftware.biz>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 05:31:34 -0600
Message-ID: <004a01c44bb9$d36d38c0$6401a8c0@reddragon>
To: "Michael Kay" <mhk@mhk.me.uk>, "'Henry S. Thompson'" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "'Stuart Gilbert'" <Stu@Better.Domain.Name>
Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>

I personally like unordered.  For the xml to object tools, it more closely
matches a one to one relationship.  Notice, the set methods on objects or
beans don't need to be set in any particular order.  Of course this is only
one use case, and I know of others where I prefer to have order.  It is
something that would be nice to be optional.
thanks,
dean


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Kay" <mhk@mhk.me.uk>
To: "'Henry S. Thompson'" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>; "'Stuart Gilbert'"
<Stu@Better.Domain.Name>
Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 3:04 PM
Subject: RE: Schema limits and ordering


>
> > If order doesn't matter, pick an order and enforce it.
> >
> > Both human authors and machines have no trouble with such discipline,
> > _and_ it makes the resulting documents easier to read.
>
> Hmmm: I'm ALWAYS making mistakes with entering data against a schema that
> arbitrarily requires date before author, when somehow author before date
> seems more natural. (And yes, I do use tools that prompt me, but I can
never
> remember to stop typing and wait for the prompt).
>
> I know why the technology has this restriction, but I think trying to
> promote it as a benefit is stretching a point!
>
> Michael Kay
>
>
Received on Sunday, 6 June 2004 07:31:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:44 GMT