- From: Biron,Paul V <Paul.V.Biron@kp.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 11:56:11 -0700
- To: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Cc: Www-Xml-Schema-Comments@w3.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: petsa@us.ibm.com [SMTP:petsa@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 1999 7:02 AM > To: Paul Prescod > Cc: Biron, Paul V; Www-Xml-Schema-Comments@W3.Org > Subject: Re: Datatypes questions > > Paul: > Good comments! > > 1) We could add an optional facet to the URI datatype restricting the > types > of elements it refers to. Paul Biron, what do you think? > I think it would be easier and conceptually cleaner to provide for that kind of functionality in our general solution to the better referencing mechanism question. > 2) I am for allowing both pictures and regexs because, as you say, each > has its virtues. I'm less keen on allowing both on a single datatype > specification because of the complex errors it can cause and the > problems > of finding them. > 3) Others have argued that we need to keep ID, IDREF, NMTOKENS etc. > because they appear in XML 1.0. We can certainly downplay them. > > Regards, Ashok > > > "Issue (uri-scheme-facet): should we have a facet to allow a limitation > > to a specific scheme? It might be useful to able to say that something > > was not only a URI, but that it was a "mailto" and not a "http://...". > > No. I think it would be in bad form to restrict by protocol. If I invent > httpplus next week my schema should not restrict me from using it. The > much more interesting sort of restriction is by target -- i.e. "this link > must go to an XML element with GI foo." But that might be out of scope. >
Received on Thursday, 13 May 1999 15:03:23 UTC