- From: Dean Hiller <dean@xsoftware.biz>
- Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 05:31:34 -0600
- To: "Michael Kay" <mhk@mhk.me.uk>, "'Henry S. Thompson'" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "'Stuart Gilbert'" <Stu@Better.Domain.Name>
- Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
I personally like unordered. For the xml to object tools, it more closely matches a one to one relationship. Notice, the set methods on objects or beans don't need to be set in any particular order. Of course this is only one use case, and I know of others where I prefer to have order. It is something that would be nice to be optional. thanks, dean ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Kay" <mhk@mhk.me.uk> To: "'Henry S. Thompson'" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>; "'Stuart Gilbert'" <Stu@Better.Domain.Name> Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org> Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 3:04 PM Subject: RE: Schema limits and ordering > > > If order doesn't matter, pick an order and enforce it. > > > > Both human authors and machines have no trouble with such discipline, > > _and_ it makes the resulting documents easier to read. > > Hmmm: I'm ALWAYS making mistakes with entering data against a schema that > arbitrarily requires date before author, when somehow author before date > seems more natural. (And yes, I do use tools that prompt me, but I can never > remember to stop typing and wait for the prompt). > > I know why the technology has this restriction, but I think trying to > promote it as a benefit is stretching a point! > > Michael Kay > >
Received on Sunday, 6 June 2004 07:31:47 UTC