Subject: RE: [xsl] James Clark on Schema From: "bryan" <bry@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:09:27 +0200 |
J.Pietschmann said : >Interesting question: does the example above support the >view that data types are actually important or the view that >the only data type that really matters is "string" and >everything else is optional? Well I think it indicates that strings are a lot easier to structure. Xml Schema seems to think so too, for example if I want to make my own datattype for currency that can have a form #,###,###.## or #.###.###,## I'm basically left restricting xsd:string by a regular expression - and what fun that is. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] James Clark on Schema, J.Pietschmann | Thread | Re: [xsl] James Clark on Schema, David Carlisle |
Re: [xsl] Matching Question, Jeni Tennison | Date | Re: [xsl] Problem XML Situation, Mike Brown |
Month |