- From: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 09:53:54 +0100
- To: "brycenesbitt" <bryce1@obviously.com>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
I'm not familiar with this. Do you have a URL I can look at? Thanks, Pete. -- ============================================= Pete Cordell Tech-Know-Ware Ltd for XML Schema to C++ data binding visit http://www.tech-know-ware.com/lmx/ http://www.codalogic.com/lmx/ ============================================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "brycenesbitt" <bryce1@obviously.com> To: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 12:59 AM Subject: Re: Schema 1.1: xs:anyEnumeration considered? > > > How about something akin to "javax". The ability to insert an extra > attribute to a non-conforming element that says "this is extended beyond > the > schema". Then you'd still catch mistakes in a standard type (e.g. > "runtal" > when "rental" was meant), but still allow true extensions (e.g. > "leasing"). > > I like the idea of providing an enumeration, even in cases where that's > just > a serving suggestion or starting point. > > > Pete Cordell wrote: >> >> >> One thing I often see are sets of enumerations that are not >> extensible.... >> >> <xs:simpleType name="foo"> >> <xs:restriction base="xs:string"> >> <xs:pattern value="[a-zA-Z0-0]{3,4}"/> >> <xs:enumeration value="ABC"/> >> <xs:enumeration value="DEFG"/> >> <xs:anyEnumeration/> <!-- New --> >> </xs:restriction> >> </xs:simpleType> >> >> > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Schema-1.1%3A-xs%3AanyEnumeration-considered--tf3415265.html#a10278076 > Sent from the w3.org - xmlschema-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > >
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2007 08:54:11 UTC