W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: Naming inconsistency

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 12 Feb 2001 10:13:54 +0000
To: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
Cc: XML Schema Comments <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f5bn1bsxl7h.fsf@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
James Clark <jjc@jclark.com> writes:

> Schemas part 2 provides three elements for deriving new types:
> 
> - list
> - union
> - restriction
> 
> Each of these elements has an attribute specifying the type or types
> from which the new type is derived:
> 
> - "list" has a "itemType" attribute
> - "union" has a "memberTypes" attribute
> - "restriction" has a "base" attribute
> 
> Surely it would be more consistent for the attribute on "restriction" to
> be "baseType" rather than "base".

Yes in principle, but in practice we are used to it by now, and didn't 
think anything would be gained by a change at this late date.

(personal opinion, the WG hasn't discussed this)

ht
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
          W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
		     URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
Received on Monday, 12 February 2001 05:13:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:12:49 GMT