[
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.
I agree with John that a type is a named value-space. I also agree with
Simon that for type to be useful in XML, its value-space must correspond
to a well-defined lexical-space. This is exactly what XML Schema
provides.
-aaron
http://staff.develop.com/aarons
|
