[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 12:37 PM 6/11/2002 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>Simon St.Laurent scripsit:
>
> > I guess I think of those constraints as bonus things you can do once you
> > have identified a type, not as something intrinsic to a particular
> > type. Sort of like constraints applied through get/set accessors in Java.
>
>Note my definition of type: a named class of values. (The name can be
>a complex name, of course, like "non-negative integer" or "integer between
>-200 and 55678".)
Yep. That's completely different from my notion of type (for XML, anyway),
which is a set of values with a common lexical representation. That
representation can include both markup and textual representation.
Further understandings start from that lexical representation and can get
more interesting.
I think you can get from mine to yours, but going from yours to mine just
exasperates me most of the time.
Simon St.Laurent
"Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue
|
