- From: David Landwehr <david.landwehr@solidapp.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 22:30:22 +0200
- To: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson)
- Cc: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>, www-forms@w3.org
Thanks. This is good enough for me (for now ;) ) Best regards, David Den May 9, 2006 kl. 9:17 PM skrev Henry S. Thompson: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > David Landwehr writes: > >> Please take a look at this: >> <complexType> >> <simpleContent> >> <extension base="integer"> >> <xsd:attribute name="test" type="integer" use="required"/> >> </extension> >> </simpleContent> >> </complexType> >> >> We agree that this is a complex type with simple content. When Henry >> wrote: "The validation semantics of (1) -- (3) are all defined in >> terms of properties of the corresponding datatype.", I toke that as >> this complex type would be regarded as a datatype which can be a >> mistake from my part. > > Datatypes don't appear in schemas. Only simple type definitions and > complex type definitions. > >> Henry, could you clarify if the above type >> definition would qualify as being name a datatype or should it be >> named a complex type with some simple content which is a datatype? > > Neither. It's a complex type definition, whose {content type} is a > simple type definition. That simple type definition is the built-in > simple type definition called 'integer' in the XML Schema namespace. > The _semantics_ of that simple type definition are provided by the > 'integer' datatype, as defined in section 3.3.13 of Part 2 of W3C XML > Schema v1.0 2nd edition [1]. Also in section 3.4.13 of Part 2 of W3C > XML Schema v1.1 Last Call PWD [2], which I recommend to you as being > clearer and more careful in its use of the words 'datatype' and > 'simple type definition'. > >> Maybe the term datatype cannot be used in XForms as it is today, >> e.g. maybe datatype is not an actual component you can reference? > > 'datatype' may be exactly the word XForms want, or 'simple type > definition'. I can't tell w/o more information. It's precisely _in > order_ that the semantics can be referenced _without_ all the XML and > validation baggage that we define _both_ a datatype 'integer' _and_ a > simple type definition xs:integer, so different specs can use the > right thing for their needs. For example, RDF are very careful to > talk about the _datatypes_, because _all_ they want is the semantics. > > If XForms just want the semantics, use 'datatype'. If they want the > XML syntax, and user-defined types and the mechanics of validation, > use 'simple type definition'. > >> Mark Birbeck wrote: > >> [Mark's expansion of what I meant is all correct, as far as I can >> tell >> from a quick readthrough] > > Hope this helps, > > ht > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#integer > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xmlschema11-2-20060217/#integer > - -- > Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of > Edinburgh > Half-time member of W3C Team > 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 > 650-4440 > Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk > URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ > [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is > forged spam] > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFEYOrakjnJixAXWBoRApjUAJ95ytHYYJ+17cUlCElYsUJc+CKpeACeOFDr > wHY/1/ZFFTHfJHQLToWFILU= > =I6g2 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2006 20:30:42 UTC