[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RDDL for names (was Re: XML Schema built-in data type namespaceURI.)
- From: "W. E. Perry" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: XML DEV <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 08:53:50 -0500
"Henry S. Thompson" wrote:
> > > > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema#unsignedInt
> > > >
> > > > is different than the concept "unsignedInt" as named by:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema-datatypes#unsignedInt
> The concept is the same, but that's _only_ because they both are
> connected to http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#unsignedInt.
It appears that my perspective is radically different from the premises which
permit this conclusion. To us (or at least to me) as XML developers, the spec
citation given is not the _only_ nexus of these two expressions of data type,
and it is one of the less interesting. If we instantiate a data instance which
describes its type by one URL reference in precisely the same form for
processing as we instantiate a different instance which describes its type by
the other URL reference, how are the types of those instances not equivalent?
And if the spec citation alleged to be their only nexus did not exist, how would
that change their equivalence, either in concept or in the immediate semantics
of their processing?