- From: Mike Card <mcard@syrres.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:07:32 -0500
- To: <public-xsd-databinding@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <002901c604be$b35a6160$4c00e8cd@itc01.syrres.com>
Yves and others on the list: Yves wrote Also, choosing to remove constraints because it doesn't fit well with the type definition in some commonly used languages may impact people that want to use strong typed languages like ADA. I agree with this statement; in fact, Ada is one of the language bindings I would be interested in supporting. I have found constraints to be useful not just for matching types in Ada, but also for ensuring data validity. I once worked on a medical application where we were transferring data over a network connection using XML messages. We used constraints in the XSD to ensure that the system was not ingesting invalid data. That is, the receiver's SAX parser was validating the messages against the XSD and discarding data that violated the constraints. We could of course have just validated all the data in our C++ code, but it was faster to build our prototype just using all of the nice features of XSD and the SAX parsing library. Changing constraints in XMLspy was (IMO) a lot easier than fixing them in C++ code as no re-compiles etc. were needed. Anyway, I agree that constraints should be included. Michael P. Card Syracuse Research Corporation (315) 452-8290 mcard@syrres.com
Received on Monday, 19 December 2005 17:08:58 UTC