- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:20:11 +0000
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
- Cc: jddahl@micron.com, "Simon Cox" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com writes:
> Henry: I wonder whether we shouldn't open an issue covering both the lack
> of clarity regarding what processors should do, as well as the need for a
> mechanism that reliably supports what's requested here.
Yes, good idea.
> I wonder whether in a future version of schema we might somehow factor the
> Schema for Schema into one piece that would indeed be a legal schema
> document covering the syntax for <xsd:element>, etc., and perhaps even the
> definitions of the built in derived types. The other piece providing the
> "magical" derivations of the builtin primitive types. Presumably, with a
> bit of care, we could arrange things so that the former could be imported
> for use in other vocabularies, as is being requested in this thread?
Certainly worth looking in to.
ht
--
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@cogsci.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]
Received on Friday, 14 November 2003 05:20:23 UTC