- From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:32:01 -0400
- To: Michael Rys <mrys@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@datadirect-technologies.com>, Mike Champion <mc@xegesis.org>, public-qt-comments@w3.org
Michael Rys scripsit:
> [Michael Rys] Promoting unknown types to xs:anyType and xs:anySimpleType
> does not work if you want to be able to have different semantics for
> typed data (strong typing) and untyped data (weak typing) and want to
> make a distinction between the most specific type being untyped and the
> most specific statically given type being the most general type.
That may be, but it isn't what 3.6 says:
# If the expanded-QName that results from this derivation is not available
# in the processor's In-Scope Schema Definitions, the expanded-QName
# is promoted to xs:anyType for elements or xs:anySimpleType for
# attributes. This can occur, for example, if the processor does not
# support the schema import feature or if it was unable to import the
# necessary schema.
Based on the indentation, this clause is in effect whether PSVI typing
is available or not.
> That the PSVI and data model is preserving xsi:nil/xsi:type as
> attributes in addition to adding information about their values to the
> element/attribute nodes is already bad enough. But having to recognize
> them even if you do not provide a validation step before is bad. And
> requiring the data model now to perform its own validation flies into
> the face of composable specs that so many people want from the W3C.
As Jeni notes in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2003Jun/0035.html ,
processors already have to do datatype validation to support union types
and casts.
--
John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht.
--Albert Einstein
Received on Thursday, 5 June 2003 16:33:30 UTC