- From: Rainer Becker <r.becker@Nitro-Software.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 14:46:35 -0400 (EDT)
- To: "'xmlschema-dev@w3.org'" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <819808E8E999D41196DA000102AF06CE0C63DB@SRV_KOM.NITRO>
Hallo Jeni, thanks again, for your answers >Hi Rainer, > >> (1) Would you agree, that the fixed-attribute is useless >> in connection with length? > >Yes. Okay, to go go a step further, this should be regarded as an error in the spec? > >> (2) What good is length anyways, is there a reason, why >> XML Schema 1.1 should still use it? > >It's only a shorthand for setting minLength and maxLength to the same >value, I think, but in some cases that shorthand feels more natural. I >don't see any big reason to drop it. In my opinion, it causes misunderstandings, that are not necessary. May sound a bit harsh, but I would favour dropping it ;-). > >> I see, that the fixed-attribute on minLength und maxLength is >> vitally important. > >Personally, I don't see the purpose of the fixed attribute anywhere (I >know what it does, just can't conceive of a situation in which it's a >useful thing to do). If you could provide a use-case, I'd really >appreciate it... Yes, Jeni, vitally important was a bit exaggerated. Sorry for that. Thinking about an use-case I get the notion of a password-type (maybe with some sort of special feature ) in a schema, that serves as a base for derived types. A fixed-attribute on minLength would make sense, in order to prevent a user to derive a type by restriction, that would allow a password with less than the minLength value. Any use-case I can possibly think of goes in the direction, how to protect a base type.... Bye Rainer
Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2002 08:20:27 UTC