- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 16:56:39 +0000 (UTC)
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Edmund Lai wrote: > > What I am proposing is that WHATWG datatype should be a superset of > XML Schema Part 2: Datatype,. Yes, but can you explain exactly what you mean by this? What syntax would this involve? > Then we can have list and union of datatypes. If that is the only reason to use XML Schema datatypes, there are definitely better ways to achive that goal. As I have pointed out, the XML Schema datatypes have a large number of problems which would make importing them into HTML much more work than it is worth, IMHO. > We can define a datatype once and use it in different places of the web > page. Could you give an example of how this would work? > Again I want to reiterate that XML Schema Part 2: Datatype only concerns > simpleType and not complexType, so it would not have the complexities of > the full schema language. The complexities of XML Schema Part 2 are what is worrying me! :-) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2004 09:56:39 UTC