Re: Typed literals text

Patrick:
> I'm not sure why my earlier examples have not
> proven to be compelling that this is necessary. But datatyping
> and language are disjunct qualifications. E.g.

>   xsd:Name"Finland"-en
>   xsd:Name"Suomi"-fi

this is not compelling because it is non-standard.
XSD says:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#string

[[[
NOTE: Many human languages have writing systems that require child elements 
for control of aspects such as bidirectional formating or ruby annotation 
(see [Ruby] and Section 8.2.4 Overriding the bidirectional algorithm: the BDO 
element of [HTML 4.01]). Thus, string, as a simple type that can contain only 
characters but not child elements, is often not suitable for representing 
text. In such situations, a complex type that allows mixed content should be 
considered. For more information, see Section 5.5 Any Element, Any Attribute 
of [XML Schema Language: Part 2 Primer]. 
]]]

If we are representing text then an XML Literal is appropriate.

Of course, in the other thread, this could be used as a further argument why 
we may need non-XSD types.

Jeremy

Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2002 08:38:27 UTC