- From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 07:35:39 -0800
- To: "W3C Public Archive" <www-archive@w3.org>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, <roberto.chinnici@sun.com>, <sanjiva@us.ibm.com>, "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
- Cc: "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
I've been looking at the initial start of the types re-write. I think
that types should remain in a separate section. I'm not convinced that
there is a types component at the abstract level. I think we just stick
with {element declarations} and {type definitions} properties in the
definitions component. We agreed in VA that additional type systems
would add their own properties to existing components in the abstract
model. I believe that the other XML based type systems should populate
these properties. We then define how the QName reference stuff works
just once.
Other type systems that are not XML based would need to specify what
properties they add to the definitions components. I've added text
saying that the component model can be added to by extensbility elements
and/or attributes.
Gudge
Received on Friday, 17 January 2003 10:36:14 UTC