W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > June 2003

RE: Meaning of "enumeration" and "pattern" in xs:list

From: Xan Gregg <xan@tibco.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 14:00:00 -0400
Message-ID: <339902DC0E58D411986A00B0D03D84320186ACCA@extmail.rtp.tibco.com>
To: "'Jeff Lowery'" <Jeff.Lowery@creo.com>
Cc: "'xmlschema-dev@w3.org'" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>

> "...When {variety} is .list., {value} is false. "
> So lists, then, are unordered?

Not in the sense you mean.  Lists are unordered in that you can't say
whether one list is greater than or less than another list, just as string
is unordered (but the characters within a string certainly have an order.).

The items within a list have an order, as indicated by the statement

    The ˇvalue spaceˇ of a ˇlistˇ datatype is a set of finite-length
    sequences of ˇatomicˇ values.

in its use of the word "sequence".


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Lowery [mailto:Jeff.Lowery@creo.com]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 1:45 PM
To: Jeff Lowery; 'ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk'; Jeni Tennison
Cc: 'xmlschema-dev@w3.org'
Subject: RE: Meaning of "enumeration" and "pattern" in xs:list

> > But if the first is the constraint, the second is _not_ a valid
> > value.  Lists are ordered.

Okay, I might be misreading this, but here's what I dug up:

" The ordered Schema Component

Schema Component: ordered 

One of {false, partial, total}. 
{value} depends on {variety}, {facets} and {member type definitions}  ...


When {variety} is .list., {value} is false. "

So lists, then, are unordered?   Or can  {facets} and {member type
definitions} override this fundamental nature of lists somehow?  
Received on Monday, 2 June 2003 14:08:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:15:11 UTC