Re: Datatypes

[James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>]

> If we can assume that parameters never change the equivalence relation,
> we can always compare the base type name

I don't think we can assume this.  The whiteSpace facet changes the
equivalence relation.

> I think that type-sensitive comparison is too much.  For the validator
> to know that maxInclusive is of the type "int", it has to know all
> parameters of the built-in datatypes of XML Schema Part 2.  If we use
> aother datatype library, the validator has to know all parameters of
> that library too.

All it requires is that the library provide a service that says what the
type of each of the parameters is, or a service that comparese to parameter
sets of equality.

That's doesn't seem hard to me.  Alternatively we can just compare the
values as strings.  That's not so bad, so long as we don't use parameters
for enumerations (which would cause a problem with QNames).

> I don't like replace (Issue 20).
>
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/trex/200105/msg00120.html#orderSignific
ance

Do you have an alternative solution that handles XHTML modularization?

> I also think that patterns for hedges and datatypes for
> whitespace-separated lists are different beasts.

Any particular reason?  I haven't reached a view on this one yet.  It is
interesting that XML Schema Formal Description uses the same construct for
both.

How (if at all) would you specify the allowed min/max length of the list?

James