W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > May 2007

Re: Schema 1.1: xs:anyEnumeration considered?

From: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 17:55:00 +0100
Message-ID: <001f01c78cda$a4bac050$4200a8c0@Codalogic>
To: "Chuck Herrick" <cherrick@spamcop.net>
Cc: "brycenesbitt" <bryce1@obviously.com>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>

Gee, thanks.  Believe it or not I had already tried that, but it didn't
actually give me any additional insight into what the OP was suggesting.
About as useful as suggesting:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=computer+science&btnG=Google+Search

Pete.
--
=============================================
Pete Cordell
Tech-Know-Ware Ltd
for XML Schema to C++ data binding visit
 http://www.tech-know-ware.com/lmx/
 http://www.codalogic.com/lmx/
=============================================

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chuck Herrick" <cherrick@spamcop.net>
To: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>
Cc: "brycenesbitt" <bryce1@obviously.com>; <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: Schema 1.1: xs:anyEnumeration considered?


>
> Here is one URL:
>  http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=javax&btnG=Google+Search
>
>>
>> I'm not familiar with this.  Do you have a URL I can look at?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Pete.
>> --
>> =============================================
>> Pete Cordell
>> Tech-Know-Ware Ltd
>> for XML Schema to C++ data binding visit
>>  http://www.tech-know-ware.com/lmx/
>>  http://www.codalogic.com/lmx/
>> =============================================
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "brycenesbitt" <bryce1@obviously.com>
>> To: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 12:59 AM
>> Subject: Re: Schema 1.1: xs:anyEnumeration considered?
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > How about something akin to "javax".  The ability to insert an
>> extra
>> > attribute to a non-conforming element that says "this is extended
>> beyond
>> > the
>> > schema".  Then you'd still catch mistakes in a standard type
>> (e.g.
>> > "runtal"
>> > when "rental" was meant), but still allow true extensions (e.g.
>> > "leasing").
>> >
>> > I like the idea of providing an enumeration, even in cases where
>> that's
>> > just
>> > a serving suggestion or starting point.
>> >
>> >
>> > Pete Cordell wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> One thing I often see are sets of enumerations that are not
>> >> extensible....
>> >>
>> >>     <xs:simpleType name="foo">
>> >>         <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
>> >>             <xs:pattern value="[a-zA-Z0-0]{3,4}"/>
>> >>             <xs:enumeration value="ABC"/>
>> >>             <xs:enumeration value="DEFG"/>
>> >>             <xs:anyEnumeration/>  <!-- New -->
>> >>         </xs:restriction>
>> >>     </xs:simpleType>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > --
>> > View this message in context:
>> >
>>
> http://www.nabble.com/Schema-1.1%3A-xs%3AanyEnumeration-considered--tf3415265.html#a10278076
>> > Sent from the w3.org - xmlschema-dev mailing list archive at
>> Nabble.com.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Chuck Herrick
> mailto:cherrick@spamcop.net
> 512 289 0926 (cell)
> 830 839 4437 (home)
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2007 16:55:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:59 GMT