Re: normative statement that xsd:string subclass of plain literals

I agree with Graham and would prefer we not make normative statements
that depend on interpretation of the XML Schema spec, which recent
history shows to be a (potential) rat hole.

I'm OK with an informative "this is what we think" and a non-normative
test case. But let's leave this issue in the informative section and
not re-promote it to normative.

Cheers,

Patrick



On 2003-10-09 13:38, "ext Graham Klyne" <gk@ninebynine.org> wrote:

> 
> I think it's not entirely up to us to make this statement normatively, as
> it depends upon the definition of xsd:string which is not in our
> remit.  There was also a small matter (I think) that some valid plain
> literals were not valid xsd:string, or vice versa, which would kill the
> entailment as simply stated (or is that now behind us with the NFC
> revision?) -- as hinted at by 'for suitable values of "aaa"'.
> 
> I suggest the entailment should follow logically from, rather than be
> asserted by, our specification together with the xsd specification, which I
> think it does.  And maybe reinforced by a suitable test case.
> 
> #g
> --
> 
> At 10:35 09/10/03 +0100, Brian McBride wrote:
> 
>> Dave Reynolds was asking me about the relationship between plain literals
>> and xsd:string, i.e is a plain literal without a lang tag (modulo some
>> funny characters) an xsd:string.
>> 
>> I adopted the policy of referring him to the spec and indeed he came back
>> and said "found it, its in the bit about entailment rules."
>> 
>> "Bu**er", I said, that section is now informative!
>> 
>> I just wanted to check whether we have a normative statement in the specs
>> that
>> 
>> _:a eg:prop "aaa" .
>> 
>> xsd:string entails
>> 
>> _:a eg:prop "aaa"^^xsd:string .
>> 
>> for suitable values of "aaa".  I should check this myself, but I'm burned
>> this morning and don't want to forget ...
>> 
>> Anyone know?  Does it matter?  Is there anything else we might have lost
>> by making that section informative?
>> 
>> Brian
> 
> ------------
> Graham Klyne
> GK@NineByNine.org
> 
>

Received on Friday, 10 October 2003 06:07:39 UTC