[XMLSCHEMA-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

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>
Re: optional

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

-- 
Boris Kolpackov
Code Synthesis Tools CC
http://www.codesynthesis.com
Open-Source, Cross-Platform C++ XML Data Binding
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 20:25:46 GMT

Subscribe to the Stylus Scoop newsletter for helpful XML tips and tutorials.
Email
First Name
Last Name
Company

Download Stylus Studio 6 XML Enterprise Edition

Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2007 All Rights Reserved.