- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:28:40 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3221 ------- Comment #2 from cmsmcq@w3.org 2007-09-17 20:28 ------- Owing to travel, I was absent when this issue on the usage of the term "value" was discussed. Had I been present on the call, I think I would have argued that the premise of the comment may need discussion or clarification. The text of the spec does not make it very explicit (perhaps it should do so), but over time, the XML Schema WG has come to agree that the best way to interpret the XSDL spec is to assume that given any value, one necessarily is also given the identity of its primitive datatype. So that one knows, given a sequence of bits, whether it is a value of type xs:hexBinary or of xs:base64Binary. This seems in many ways analogous to the idea in the QT specs that when given a value, one knows what type it has. The difference is that XSDL assumes one knows the primitive datatype, while in QT one knows the governing type definition (or the active member type definition. But it is true that XSDL regards the identity of the primitive type as just a property of the value, rather than talking about pairs whose one member is the name of a type and whose other is the 'value' qua datapoint within the value space of that type. It would probably be worth while, both in XSDL and in the relevant QT specs, to point to this difference in usage and to point out that the difference in viewpoint is not, in practice, all that great.
Received on Monday, 17 September 2007 20:28:42 UTC