Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <SimonStL@classic.msn.com>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Tue, 11 Aug 98 20:31:16 UT
>Not now! Everyone agrees that we need datatypes. I expect some cheerful
>& constructive bloodletting in the SIG & WG as to which set of datatypes
>we need. Anybody who invests effort in that set at this time is spinning
>It's not a problem :-). The main effort is in getting the validation,
>presentation, etc done. To add new datatypes or syntax is relatively
>straightforward. And I'm not doing the whole lot, either - just the
>commonest ones. And I wouldn't go near the COBOL stuff.
>So separating out the list of types from the mechanics
>seems particularly well motivated given that there are possibly three related
>W3C activities which could have their own way of representating the
One of my biggest complaints about XML-Data (and a lot of why we started out
XSchema) was that it did too much too fast in one giant spec. I'd be _much_
happier to see the W3C hash out data types (and possibly their relationship to
assorted Unicode representations) in a _separate_ document.
Data types are critically important, and I'd like to see them given the full
attention they deserve rather than as part of something else.
This would also improve their reusability, making it much easier to refer to
the short and useful XML-Types spec, for instance, rather than Section 4 of
the DCD spec, which only XML developers and possibly XML document authors are
likely to read.
Dynamic HTML: A Primer / XML: A Primer / Cookies
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)