- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:40:45 +0100
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
on goofiness > # dt:QName # omitted due to ambiguity needs in scope namespaces > # dt:NOTATION # omitted; DTD support not merited needs user defined types (merely an abstract datatype at this level) > # NMTOKEN OK - but really corresponds to an XML DTD concept. > # NMTOKENS ditto > # ID > # IDREF Both duplicates of NCName so no need to use them, (except for XML DTD compatibility issues that I haven't yet come across). > # IDREFS (There isn't an NCNames built-in ...) > # ENTITY > # ENTITIES Need surrounding document I am largely in agreement with Dan. When we recommend the use of XSD, we probably should recommend a subset. I am a little worried about the equality issues on the datetime objects .... Mainly XSD jsut defers to an ISO standard for those. Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 26 November 2002 10:41:10 UTC