W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > January to March 2009

[Bug 6522] Please un-deprecate the the namespace http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-datatypes

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 15:21:40 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1LUjZM-0007H5-Q3@wiggum.w3.org>


--- Comment #7 from Dave Peterson <davep@iit.edu>  2009-02-04 15:21:40 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> I think there is no problem having multiple names for the same type until you
> start to support reflection. As soon as you provide interrogatives that allow
> you to ask "what is the name of this type?" or "what is the name of the type of
> this value?", you hit trouble if the type has more than one name.

We should note that--as currently defined--a datatype does not have a name. 
One function of a simple type definition is to identify a datatype and attach a
name to it.  Note also that many of the auxiliary terms defining additional
attributes (generic, not in the XML sense) require that one look at the
mechanism used to associate one datatype with another; of course, in XSD
processing that mechanism is that defined in 2.4 .  If a different mechanism is
used, the concepts defined in 2.4 may or may not be useful.

However, using the names associated by this spec to identify datatypes does not
require that one adopt the simple-type-definition mechanism; this spec adopted
that mechanism and associated datatypes with names.  Others are free to use
those names to identify datatypes in which they are interested, without
adopting that selection mechanism for identifying additional datatypes.

Given that observation, it's not clear to me why a user would need to use the
now-deprecated namespace.  For that matter, even a user who wants to use only
the simple-type-definition mechanism can certainly use the simple type
definitions from the other namespace.  On the other hand, it appears that the
only reason for deprecating the alternate namespace is because some
definition-dependent attributes may not give expected answers--but why would
one choose to use both namespaces willy-nilly in the first place?

This is beginning to feel like a tempest in a teapot.

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 15:21:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:50:09 UTC