- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:23:00 -0400
- To: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>
Dare Obasanjo wrote: [[ > > > I can imagine doing type > >annotation in a much more lightweight way than bringing a large complex > >declarative schema facility to bear. In fact, why shouldn't I just be > >able to jam something into the instance or infoset saying "this > >attribute here is an integer"? > > W3C XML Schema already has this facility through xsi:type[0]. However I can't even begin to imagine how this system would work without validation. How would one express simple or complex without looking at some predefined schema and comparing the instance with that schema? Or do you propose this only for simple types? Similarly how would one annotate attributes in an instance documents when attributes themselves are meant to annotate elements? ]] At a baseline, the type of any attribute may be identified by its QName. It comes down to how you define "validation" which has become a somewhat overloaded term, particularly as it related to "schema validation" according to a specific schema language. But generally, yes, you would compare a set of constraints that define a type against some part of the instance document to assign a type. As Tim says, the benefit of calling this a "type adorned infoset" is that it doesn't imply any _particular_ process of adorning the infoset with types even if _some_ process is used. Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 13 June 2002 15:28:04 UTC