- From: T.V Raman <raman@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 09:11:40 -0700
- To: beaufour@gmail.com
- Cc: mark.birbeck@x-port.net, www-forms@w3.org
Yes -- I agree with Alan here. Also from memory: somewhere else in the spec we did say that things default to xsd:string --- and I believe it was from that defaulting behavior that we derived the assertion that Alan points at in the XForms Basic spec. Allan Beaufour writes: > > On 5/4/06, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net> wrote: > > However, one thing is certain--the error (using an undefined type) cannot be > > ignored. On the telecon earlier today, people kept saying that if a > > non-existent type was referenced then the processor should interpret the > > node as being of type xsd:string; I don't see how this interpretation was > > arrived at, and it's certainly not in the specification. > > It is in Basic is it not: > "XForms Basic Profile processors may treat XML Schema datatypes other > than the following as xsd:string: [... list of types]" > [http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms-basic/#id2606183] > > -- > ... Allan -- -- T. V. Raman
Received on Friday, 5 May 2006 16:12:33 UTC