W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > October 2007

Re: optional, but at least one required

From: Boris Kolpackov <boris@codesynthesis.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:08:37 +0200
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Cc: Marie Bilde Rasmussen <mariebilderas@gmail.com>, Pete Cordell <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>, Virginia Wiswell <vwiswell@verizon.net>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Message-ID: <20071017200837.GB9491@karelia>

noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> writes:

> BTW: don't infer from the length of the above lists that I'm against
> UPA;  I've been in favor of it, and it's sufficiently important to
> our database implementors among others that I remain in favor.

I've also noticed that people who struggle with UPA are invariably
trying to create vocabularies which, while may be more suitable for
human consumption, are hard to handle in software due to overloading
of the same markup for multiple purposes. I also have a feeling that
the upcoming assertion mechanism will make it easier for people to
create such vocabularies.


Boris Kolpackov
Code Synthesis Tools CC
Open-Source, Cross-Platform C++ XML Data Binding
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 20:25:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:15:44 UTC