- From: Biron,Paul V <Paul.V.Biron@kp.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 14:49:21 -0700
- To: "'Jeni Tennison'" <jeni@jenitennison.com>, Michael Leditschke <mike@ammd.com.au>
- Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jeni Tennison [SMTP:jeni@jenitennison.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 7:08 AM > To: Michael Leditschke > Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org > Subject: Re: Clarification on enumerations > > Hi Michael, > > > I guess it comes down to interpretation of language - a problem with > > all specs - but to me a pattern is "a single defining aspect" of the > > lexical space, not the value space. In which case, shouldn't the > > definition of a facet be a bit broader (as it is by implication in > > the definition of a datatype)? > > Probably, I guess. The value space and the lexical space are related, > after all, so if a facet constrains the value space then it constrains > the lexical space and if a facet constrains the lexical space then > it's likely to also constrain the value space (though not necessarily, > of course). > Well, there are many in the WG (myself included) who felt that the pattern facet should only apply the xs:string (and types derived from it). That is, we wanted to say that the pattern facet, like all others (with the exception of whiteSpace :-) applies to the value space (since for xs:string the value and lexical spaces are identical). However, "we" lost the battle and pattern applies to all types...hence the oddity of how it is described...as effecting the value space by operating on the lexical space. > BTW, if you're enjoying swimming in the muddy water of what facets > constrain, then you should explore the whiteSpace facet, which > "constrains" the value space by allowing *more* lexical > representations to reflect values in that space that would otherwise > be permitted. > As Henry said in his reply, whiteSpace is another one of those things that really isn't a facet at all and the functionality it provides was discovered as being required during the "end-game" of going to REC and it was felt that the least disruptive thing to do was to just call it a facet. Live and learn, huh? pvb
Received on Friday, 19 July 2002 18:04:54 UTC