> I made a proposal related to the whole type validation mechanism, which really
> extends beyond DCD but would address a lot of its issues as well as allow for
> much more extensibility. I'd like to post it here for comment (with some
> internal information removed) in order to perhaps bash it out as a general
type
> validation mechanism. However, right not its in a Notes database and if I post
> it here its going to look so horrible that it will probably be unreadable.
While I like this proposal and think there is a definite need for it, I would
rather see it as an addition to, rather than a replacement of, a simple data
type attribute.
This is not a technical issue, merely a usability one. It has simply been my
experience that explaining what a function is to non-technical or moderately
technical people is very difficult; explaining what a data type is, is not.
Furthermore, I suspect that 80-90% of the data typing needs in a document can be
met by a subset of the DCD data types. I am therefore reluctant to get rid of
such a simple method, especially since data type attributes would be easily
reusable outside of schema files:
<MyIntegerElementInFileWithNoSchemaOrDTD DCD:dt="int">10</...>
I also lean toward Curt Arnold's feeling that the functions should be written in
XML. Certainly there are enough IDL/RPC/etc.-in-XML type proposals floating
around that there would be no need to reinvent the wheel here. Might even be
able to reuse some code...
-- Ron Bourret