[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Two different notions of primitive type? (was Re: fundamentalf
Dare Obasanjo wrote: >All of these problems don't matter as much if all you are designing is a validation language. They mainly become problematic when you want to perform operations on these types either in a programming or query language. > > I suspect there may be two different ideas of "primitive type" floating around there. One idea of "primitive types" is a mutually exclusive set of value spaces and lexical mappings which need specific operations defined on them to allow comparison between one type and another. One primitive type is not derived from another. I think this is Dare's usage. The other idea of "primitive type" is a component in (some future) XML Schemas that has some set of facets that its parent type does not have (less or more). One primitive type could potentially be derived from another, with added facets. I think this may be Eric's usage. I guess it comes down to a difference in whether a thing is a type because it has a particular range of values (characterized by facets) or whether a thing is a type because it has a particular set of facets (which constrain values). Do anySimpleType, anyAtomicType or anyType have all facets or no facets? Or do they have constraining facets but not fundamental facets? At the moment in WXS, I think I am right in saying that a type derived by restriction cannot introduce new facets (or, at a deeper level, different value spaces). So it is impossible for a NOTATION to be derived from a NMTOKEN, or an anyURI from a String, or a Japanese data from a gDate. Cheers Rick Jelliffe
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|