- 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