W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > June 2008

RE: UPA example

From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:34:46 +0100
To: "'Boris Kolpackov'" <boris@codesynthesis.com>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F4B93AD7F99F467D9277474817B80F3E@Sealion>

> 
> Yes, I also think it won't be valid unless the parser in 1.1 
> is expected to do backtracking. I am also wondering if the 
> authors of this change to the spec considered how hard it 
> will be to explain something like this to a user.

I think this is a pretty unrealistic example. I think that in most practical
cases the new rules will have much more intuitive behaviour than the old
rules. Perhaps it would be even more intuitive if backtracking were added,
but I think most WG members regard that as a bridge too far.

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2008 08:35:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:56:14 UTC