RE: ISSUE-9: union pattern for pending document

On 15 Jun 2006, at 13:12, Peter Hendry wrote:


> So during unmarshalling first xs:string would be 
> tried (which would always match) and xs:date would 
> not be tried. xs:date could only be matched 
> if xsi:type was present.

right!

> Is it worth pointing a subtlety like this out? 

Oh yes!

> I have seen it in a number of customer schemas 
> who have subsequently changed the order once they 
> are shown the light. When writing a union it is 
> best to define the memberTypes from most restrictive to least.

I'm moving towards proposing one pattern for each 
combination of built in types we allow in Basic Patterns
and/or adding a design consideration around this issue.

Paul

Received on Thursday, 15 June 2006 15:18:06 UTC