- From: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 11:06:33 -0000
- To: <paul.downey@bt.com>, <public-xsd-databinding@w3.org>
Hi Paul,
----- Original Message From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
>> This may have been discussed, but from what I have seen, xs:unions in
>> general are badly supported by binding tools. Hence this issue refers
>> to a particular case of the more general xs:union issue.
> It might be worth my raising a separate issue for xs:union.
I think that would be appropriate. Maybe something like:
* Title: Support for xs:union
* Description: see below
* Target: "Basic"?
* Proposal: see below
Description: A number of binding tools do not support the xs:union construct
well. They often map a attribute/element xs:union value to a simple string
irrespective of whether the type contains integers or other more specific
types. (It would be hoped that binding tools will improve in this area in
future.)
Proposal: Developers should be made aware that binding tools don't always
handle xs:union well, and as such should avoid the construct if possible.
However, there are occasions when xs:union can not be avoided. In this case
developers should be aware that additional application level processing may
be required.
How does that sound?
Pete.
--
=============================================
Pete Cordell
Tech-Know-Ware Ltd
for XML to C++ data binding visit
http://www.tech-know-ware.com/lmx
(or http://www.xml2cpp.com)
=============================================
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2006 11:06:52 UTC