Re: ID/IDREF strawman #2

[James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>]

Yes,  you're right.  Sorry, I read your example too quickly. I think the
right answer to your question is that in my proposal enumeration wouldn't be
done as a parameter.

<data type="xsd:qname">
   <choice>
      <value>foo:foo</value>
  </choice>
</data>

But qname does complicate things: it means you cannot consider a datatype as
defining an equivalence class of strings; it has to have a context including
at least the in-scope namespace declarations.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI" <kohsuke.kawaguchi@eng.sun.com>
To: "TREX ML" <trex@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: ID/IDREF strawman #2


> > Sure, there would be plenty of cases where TREX would regard two
datatypes
> > as distinct even though they accept the same set of strings. But I think
>
> Just in case, TREX regards two datatypes *equal* although they are
> *distinct* in my example.
>
> But again I agree that this is probably not a problem in practice.
>
>
> --
> Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI                          +1 650 786 0721
> Sun Microsystems                   kohsuke.kawaguchi@eng.sun.com
>
>
>
>