- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 13:11:51 -0500
- To: "'Tim Bray'" <tbray@textuality.com>, www-tag@w3.org
Agreeing with the notion that validation and type augmentation can/should be decoupled, what is wrong with the notion of pluggable types other than creating yetAnotherPossiblyUnpredictableComponent? len -----Original Message----- From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com] On further consideration, I probably would back off my statement above; for example, it seems just fine to refer to the XMl schema basic type repertoire (or hopefully, a subset of it) by reference. The problem that worries me here is where typing information comes from, and the supposition that types exist only as a side-effect of validation processing. -Tim
Received on Thursday, 13 June 2002 14:12:36 UTC