ambiguity in XML Schema

> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Antoine Zimmermann
> <antoine.zimmermann@deri.org> wrote:
> > Boris Motik a =E9crit :
> >>
> >> =A0[...]
> >> Note that this is *exactly* the same problem as the one we have with
> >> xsd:decimal
> >> and xsd:double; hence, I consider it really strange to use one solution
> >> for
> >> numerics but a completely different one for dates.
> >
> > I agree. And for consistency, it would be reasonable to adopt this change=
> ,
> > IMHO.
> >
> >> [...]
> >> - Nobody (such as RIF) can scorn us for going our way: we can always poi=
> nt
> >> to
> >> XML Schema and say "Here is the holy bible!"
> >
> > The Bible is all about interpretation ;-)
> 
> Hello Antoine.
> I'd consider something of a failure if anything in our normative
> specification is subject to interpretation. Would you not agree that
> the bible is a rather bad example to follow if one is writing a
> specification?
> -Alan

I believe Antoine was making a (rather funny, IMHO) joke, and perhaps
also a point to Boris that *just* pointing to XML Schema will, in some
cases, be a disservice to folks using our specs.  I think that's your
point as well.

I imagine we could either have some text like "Reading XML Schema",
where we talk about what we understand XML Schema to be saying, or some
approved test cases which make the key points, or both.  I'm strongly
for the test cases and neutral on the how-to-interpret text.  In any
case, I'd suggest approving the text cases first, to reduce the risk of
fighting over the text.

      -- Sandro

Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 12:11:03 UTC