Re: XML literals

On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 00:06, Patrick Stickler wrote:
[...]
>          
> Maybe.  
>  
>         in 1:1 correspondence with the lexical space.
> Right.

Hmm... that one gave me pause... but OK.

>         The exact nature of XML values is not specified.
>  
> No. This bothers me. Alot.

Really? The exact nature of integers is not specified;
just various relationships like addition and
multiplication of them.

If it bothers you, then feel free to suggest an alternative.

We could pick any set that's in 1-1 correspondence
with the lexical space; e.g. pairs
	(humpty-dumpty, lexical-value)

or perhaps less churlishly...
	(http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral, lexical-value)

 
> It is our responsibility to define what the values of XML Literals
> are.

Only inasmuch as required to get the technology deployed.

> It's *our* datatype, and no'one else should have to define it,  or
> guess.

They don't have to guess; what Pat wrote tells them everything
they need to know.

> I've never understood the opposition to having a value space
> consisting of infosets. I wish someone would tell me what significant
> problem or issue I'm missing...

How to construct an infoset and how to compare them isn't
specified.

-- 
Dan