- From: Andrew Layman <andrewl@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 17:03:50 -0700
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
I support Steven's separation of the "data type" problem into several issues. In fact, I think it is appropriate to divide it further, and this may help to separate the work into the parts that need to be done now versus those that can be deferred. 1. How is the type of an element identified. That is, the specific syntax that says "this element is of type x". This needs to address the fact that several types are further qualified (such as the number of digits for the proposed DECIMAL type). 2. From what namespace do types come? Is it a closed set, or an extensible one? If extensible, how and by whom? 3. If a set is defined by us, is it part of the language specification, or a standard library? 4. Are data types the same as element types? Notations? Some new beast? Answering the questions above solves the problem of unambiguously attaching a data type to an element. We could go further and ask How do we validate that the element contains the claimed type? In what language are the validations expressed? How do we distribute the parsers and validators? How does validation interact with the issue of element sub-classing? (Strongly, in my opinion.) The immediate needs I am hearing from customers is only to solve the first set. That is, they simply need a way for an author of an element to communicate a subtype of PCDATA and a notation. They will have parsers for the notations they care about. They are not presently interested in any general-purpose validation, enforcement, or parsing language. I hope this is helpful. --Andrew Layman AndrewL@microsoft.com
Received on Thursday, 22 May 1997 20:03:51 UTC