[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: ID-ness is not the same as type (Re: [xml-dev] Re: determinin gID-ness in XML)
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org, bob mcwhirter <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 08:06:40 -0600
In relational dbs, one can autogenerate an ID, or choose
a set member. So the assignment of keyness is not the
same as being a type. Ok. But just to be clear, why
is that a mistake for XML?
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
Bob's comments remind me of one of the good things about the XML
Schema key/keyref mechanism -- it separates 'being a key' from 'being
a string/integer/date'. SGML and then XML conflated these two, which
was with hindsight a mistake.
It would be nice if whatever solution we come up with didn't make that
mistake again. I _think_ the xml:idatt(s) proposal at least could be
understood to be _additional_ information about an attribute.