[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: a:attributeType
James Clark wrote: > I've been thinking about Mike's suggestion that we should > xsd:ID/IDREF/IDREFS instead of a:attributeType. The more I think about this > the more it makes sense from the point of view of the user. The problem is > how to specify it. > I like this proposal. In particular, I like separation of "ID-sound" and validity. I think that the user should not be forced to use the XML Schema datatype library, which is buggy and complicated, only to use ID/IDREF/IDREFS. Is it OK if an implementation implements only ID/IDREF/IDREFS (and possibly easy built-in datatypes and facets) and do not implement other complicated datatypes and facets? > One problem is that this isn't anything to do with annotations, so either we > would have to call our spec something other than "DTD Compatibility > Annotations" (maybe simply "DTD Compatibility") or we would have to move > this feature into a separate spec. Probably as part of the guideline document for using XML Schema Part 2 from RELAX NG? Cheers, Makoto
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC