Re: Issue 234: 'unbounded' v '*' in arraySize

 I agree now that no action should be taken in resolving issue
234 - the array instances are not unbounded, they are rather "of
unspecified length", but the length is fixed and easily computed.

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation

On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, Martin Gudgin wrote:

 > I propose that we close this issue[1] with no action. '*' is concise and
 > it's meaning is well-defined in the specification. The argument
 > regarding 'unbounded' does not sway me, as 'unbounded' appears in schema
 > documents rather than instances. It is by no means certain that should
 > the XML Schema group define an array type they would use 'unbounded' in
 > the instance document to indicate an array of arbitrary size. I think it
 > at least as likely they would use '*'
 > Gudge
 > [1]

Received on Sunday, 1 September 2002 10:23:35 UTC