- From: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:37:20 -0000
- To: <paul.downey@bt.com>, <public-xsd-databinding@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: <paul.downey@bt.com> > > So the questions for C/C++ and other languages with similar limitations > > become: is this an issue? Should it be left to vendors to sort out? > > Should a mapping procedure be specified that ends up with only valid > > C/C++ > > characters? > > there is a short paragraph on this subject in our input document: > > """ > The name of a schema type, attribute or element may be any valid XML > non-colonized name including names which may be reserved or not directly > representable in some programming languages, such as "object", "static", > "final", "class", "Customer-Profile", etc. > """ > > http://www.w3.org/2005/07/xml-schema-patterns.html#Naming > > Which is basically advising tools that they have to support all > of the possible XML names for elements and types. > > > Should developers be advised that for maximum portability the > > character set used for XML names should be limited to the C/C++ set? > > I'm not keen on advising Schema authors to restrict how they name > elements and attributes, especially as there isn't an obvious subset > - C++ names often don't work well in SQL or COBOL and vice-versa. I agree with the requirement that tools should support all mappings. I'm just slightly worried that there's an issue of what can be done vs. what can easily be done. For example, a tool could map Chinese characters to their Unicode number (e.g. Type_U1234_U6543), but a Chinese developer might decide that they prefer to use ASCII XML names in preference to this. Admittedly, most tools allow manual mapping of names, but again, this involves more work, so it's another trade-off that a developer may choose to make. So is the purpose of the document to advise purely on what is possible (even if it is unattractive), or should it give guidance on language specific trade-offs? For example, it could advise that not all XML names are directly representatable in some programming languages (such as C/C++, SQL etc), and as a result the automatically mapped names may be non-intuitive, or additional manual configuartion may be required if names are not chosen with with these limitations in mind. 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 Monday, 16 January 2006 10:37:39 UTC