Re: [xri] talking about types

[Will Norris <will@willnorris.com>]

On Sep 1, 2009, at 4:09 PM, Will Norris wrote:

> There are a number of places where the text talks about the value  
> type of a particular element.  For example:
>
>> <Subject> is a xs:anyURI value which identifies a resource.
>
> Now technically, <Subject> is NOT of type "xs:anyURI", it's of type  
> "xrd:anyURI" (note the different namespace).  xrd:anyURI is a very  
> lightweight extension of xs:anyURI which allows for arbitrary  
> attributes.  So while it is inaccurate to say that the <Subject>  
> element is of type "xs:anyURI", it would not necessarily be  
> inaccurate to say that the text content of the <Subject> element is  
> of type xs:anyURI.
>
> Do folks think that the above sentence should be updated to reflect  
> this, or am I just splitting hairs?  If it should be changed, should  
> it be changed to declare a type of xrd:anyURI?  Or rather should it  
> stick with xs:anyURI and just be more specific that the **value** of  
> the element has that type?


Just thinking that one way to reword the above sentence would be to  
replace "is" with "contains":

> <Subject> contains a xs:anyURI value which identifies a resource.

That implies that the type applies to the text content of the  
element.  eh?