- From: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 15:48:47 -0000
- To: "Databinding WG" <public-xsd-databinding@w3.org>
Just for completeness...
In the days when we used ASN.1, for some reason we never used enumerated
types even though the language supported it. Instead we used a choice of
NULL options. I don't know why this was as I joined the effort after this
precedent had been set. But it does raise the possibility of using a
similar approach for XSD. Something like:
<element name='options'>
<choice>
<element name='option1' type='t:empty'/>
<element name='option2' type='t:empty'>
<!-- Favorite extensibility mechanism -->
<any namespace='##other'>
</choice>
</element>
To be represented something like:
<options><option2/><options>
Actually, more than once this approach gave us a get out when we needed to
add more data to the option than just the name!
If this is deemed not too wacky, it could be presented as one possible
alternative to the extensible enumeration.
Regards,
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)
=============================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "Databinding Issue Tracker" <dean+cgi@w3.org>
To: <public-xsd-databinding@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 11:32 PM
Subject: ISSUE-5: Open Enumerated Type
>
>
> ISSUE-5: Open Enumerated Type
>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/databinding/issues/5
>
> Raised by: Paul Downey
> On product: Basic
>
> Our input document includes an "Extensible Enumerated Type" pattern:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/07/xml-schema-patterns.html#Enumerated-Extensible
>
> As common a Schema pattern as this may be, experience with current
> databinding
> tools means its use is unlikely to give users a good experience with
> databinding
> tools. Does this pattern belong in Basic or Advanced patterns?
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2006 15:49:03 UTC