Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
"Henry S. Thompson" wrote: > > > > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema#unsignedInt > > > > > > > > is different than the concept "unsignedInt" as named by: > > > > > > > > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema-datatypes#unsignedInt > > The concept is the same, but that's _only_ because they both are > connected to http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#unsignedInt. It appears that my perspective is radically different from the premises which permit this conclusion. To us (or at least to me) as XML developers, the spec citation given is not the _only_ nexus of these two expressions of data type, and it is one of the less interesting. If we instantiate a data instance which describes its type by one URL reference in precisely the same form for processing as we instantiate a different instance which describes its type by the other URL reference, how are the types of those instances not equivalent? And if the spec citation alleged to be their only nexus did not exist, how would that change their equivalence, either in concept or in the immediate semantics of their processing? Respectfully, Walter Perry
|
