- From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:14:13 +0100
- To: <peter.hendry@capeclear.com>
- Cc: <jon.calladine@bt.com>, <public-xsd-databinding@w3.org>
On 15 Jun 2006, at 13:12, Peter Hendry wrote: > So during unmarshalling first xs:string would be > tried (which would always match) and xs:date would > not be tried. xs:date could only be matched > if xsi:type was present. right! > Is it worth pointing a subtlety like this out? Oh yes! > I have seen it in a number of customer schemas > who have subsequently changed the order once they > are shown the light. When writing a union it is > best to define the memberTypes from most restrictive to least. I'm moving towards proposing one pattern for each combination of built in types we allow in Basic Patterns and/or adding a design consideration around this issue. Paul
Received on Thursday, 15 June 2006 15:18:06 UTC