W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > April to June 1999

RE: Datatypes questions

From: Biron,Paul V <Paul.V.Biron@kp.org>
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 11:56:11 -0700
Message-Id: <376E771642C1D2118DC300805FEAAF43B5B3@pars-exch-1.ca.kp.org>
To: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
Cc: Www-Xml-Schema-Comments@w3.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	petsa@us.ibm.com [SMTP:petsa@us.ibm.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, May 13, 1999 7:02 AM
> To:	Paul Prescod
> Cc:	Biron, Paul V; Www-Xml-Schema-Comments@W3.Org
> Subject:	Re: Datatypes questions
> 
> Paul:
> Good comments!
> 
> 1) We could add an optional facet to the URI datatype restricting the
> types
>     of elements it refers to.  Paul Biron, what do you think?
> 
I think it would be easier and conceptually cleaner to provide for that kind
of functionality in our general solution to the better referencing mechanism
question.

> 2) I am for allowing both pictures and regexs because, as you say, each
>     has its virtues.  I'm less keen on allowing both on a single datatype
>     specification because of the complex errors it can cause and the
> problems
>     of finding them.
> 3) Others have argued that we need to keep ID, IDREF, NMTOKENS etc.
>     because they appear in XML 1.0.  We can certainly downplay them.
> 
> Regards, Ashok
> 
> > "Issue (uri-scheme-facet): should we have a facet to allow a limitation
> > to a specific scheme? It might be useful to able to say that something
> > was not only a URI, but that it was a "mailto" and not a "http://...".
> 
> No. I think it would be in bad form to restrict by protocol. If I invent
> httpplus next week my schema should not restrict me from using it. The
> much more interesting sort of restriction is by target -- i.e. "this link
> must go to an XML element with GI foo." But that might be out of scope.
> 
Received on Thursday, 13 May 1999 15:03:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:12:46 GMT