- 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