- From: Andrew Layman <andrewl@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 10:02:26 -0700
- To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
I think that there is a lot of merit to Rich's suggestion. Some issues, such as this one, may arise or first become prominent in the context of XML Protocol, yet their utility is broader than just protocols. The ability to place one XML document within another appears to me to be broadly useful, and consequently a matter to be addressed at the level of XML core or XML datatypes. I also note that the problem could be analyzed as that the binary datatype provided by XML Schemas part II is insufficient. It provides a lexical space, but its "value space" is merely a string of bits, that is, another lexical space. The string of bits is the encoding of some value, but the type of the value is not expressed by the facilities of XML Schemas, neither as a facet nor via the xsi:type attribute. An additional facility, for example an additional attribute, is needed to constrain the actual type of the value. Although in earlier mail I had suggested an attribute along the lines of xsi:mimeType="application/xml", I now believe that we should leverage the URI namespace, and so the attribute should be more like xsi:valueType="mime:application/xml". I explicitly mean that any URI identifying a type should be valid as the value of the attribute. -----Original Message----- From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@zolera.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 9:50 AM To: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com Cc: Christopher Ferris; xml-dist-app@w3.org Subject: Re: Possibility of an XML Document Type There's another possible conclusion, too: XML within XML is the job of the XML WG, not this group. That's an important one. /r$ -- Zolera Systems, Your Key to Online Integrity Securing Web services: XML, SOAP, Dig-sig, Encryption http://www.zolera.com
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2001 13:09:27 UTC