- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:06:24 -0400
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Dave Reynolds wrote: > > >> Sandro Hawke wrote: > > The issue here is how many extensibility points there are. I am kind of > > liking the idea of having exactly one: every dialect has a different > > syntax, and the inputs/outputs you process can be completely summed up > > by naming which dialects you process. If a system implements BLD and > > also the datatype xs:double, then we just say it handles a new dialect > > (which, somewhere, is defined to be BLD along with an xs:double > > subclass, as above.) > > I prefer the notion that things like primitive datatypes are modular and > you can support an additional datatype without having to define a new > dialect. The current version of BLD allows that. You can use any ^^foo you like provided foo is not one of the pre-defined names. However, this does not have the provision of restricting the lexical space of these "unknown" data types. (Do not know if you care about it.) --michael
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2007 13:06:48 UTC