- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:17:24 -0700
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Joshua Allen wrote: >>1. Type-augmented XML is a good thing and a recommendation should be >>prepared describing it both at the infoset and syntax level. (I gather > > Type-augmented XML needs a type system. Which are you recommending? > A) Single spec, which uses one existing type system (XSD, WebOnt, XDR, > RDFS, etc.) > B) One spec for each > C) Single spec that combines many existing type systems > D) Yet another type system Good question. My initial take would be that - types should be named by URI - assume a subset of the XSD simple types is built-in but this requires further thought. >>4. Work on XQuery and other things that require a Type-Augmented Infoset >>must not depend on schema processing, and should not have normative >>linkages to any schema language specifications. > > Are you saying that the XQuery type-augmented infoset should be in a > separate spec (which might have normative linkage to XSD), or that the > XQuery should be changed to allow *any* type-augmented infoset spec that > someone chooses to implement? The first, I think. But my real basic point is that types are not necessarily a consequence of validation. -Tim
Received on Thursday, 13 June 2002 14:15:04 UTC