[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
From: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>
> I'm astonished to see document people disowning the idea of
> datatyping, as if better datatyping (and the failure of #PCDATA
> to provide the constraints we wanted, for things like numbers
> or dates or other simple datatypes) had not been one of the
> most frequently mentioned desiderata in discussions of markup
> among professional DTD designers, in the years 1986-1998.
> Datatyping is in XML Schema NOT because the database people
> crammed it down our throats, but because both the data people
> and the document people in the WG (who included, at various times,
> Paul Grosso, Murray Maloney, Eve Maler, Murata Makoto, and
> myself) wanted it
Michael might consider there is a middle ground too: the people who
need a handful of simple types (perhaps Date, String and Number)
and got a facetted type lattice attached in practise to elementFormDefault,
nillable, final, equivalence groups, derivation by restriction, derivation
by union (a restriction?), derivation by union (a restiction?),
complex types, derivation by extension, and on and on.
Cheers
Rick Jelliffe
|
