Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
W. E. Perry wrote: > > 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? I think this follows directly from the natures of resources as defined in RFC 2396 and the distinction between a resource which is named by a URI, and the network entity which results from the resolution of a particular URI at a particular point in time. A type is a resource not its associated network entity. Henry is stating that the normative prose in the XML Schema spec makes such assertions about the datatypes (my paraphrasing). > 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? > I'm having trouble parsing this. Please explain. -Jonathan
|
