W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > October 2010

Re: difference in design

From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 22:19:13 +0100
Message-ID: <4CA65051.40008@saxonica.com>
To: Abe Scott <abe@xpressionexpert.com>
CC: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
  Presumably if you think B is invalid, that's because there's a schema 
that mandates A, in which case you can explain why it is invalid by 
explaining how it violates the schema.

Or are you simply suggesting that you think A is a better design? (Odd, 
it feels like a worse design to me, a lot of the structure seems 
redundant). But it seems very strange that you are arguing about the 
design of your XML at this stage, when data is already flowing, rather 
than having agreed it up front.

Michael Kay
Saxonica

On 30/09/2010 8:48 PM, Abe Scott wrote:
> Exhibit A:
>
> <identification>
> <returned_name_address>
> <name_address>Doe, John</name_address>
> </returned_name_address>
> <returned_name_address>
> <name_address>33235 N Main St</name_address>
> </returned_name_address>
> <returned_name_address>
> <name_address>CLEVELAND OH 441245239</name_address>
> </returned_name_address></identification>
>
>
> Exhibit B:
>
> <identification>
> <returned_name_address>
> <name_address>Doe, John</name_address>
> <name_address>33235 N Main St</name_address>
> <name_address>CLEVELAND OH 441245239</name_address>
> </returned_name_address></identification>
>
>  I understand that A is multiple rows in the <returned_name_address> 
> table.  How
> would you describe B?  We're getting B back in a result set from a vendor
> service and I'm having trouble explaining to them why it's invalid.
>
>
> -- 
> Abe Scott
> Sr Solutions Consultant
> Muse Consulting, LLC
> 609-836-0570 voice
> 801-459-5695 fax
Received on Friday, 1 October 2010 21:19:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:15:26 GMT