• To: amyzing@t... (Amelia A Lewis)
• Subject: Re: Data binding as type definition
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 10:10:15 -0400 (EDT)
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <1023799616.10767.48.camel@marajen> from "Amelia A Lewis" at Jun 11, 2002 08:46:56 AM

Amelia A Lewis scripsit:

> So, is it better to define a type in XML as something that can be
> validated, or as something that maps to type A in language Z, type B in
> language Y, type A again in language X, and type L in language O?

How did this get to be about the *definition* of types?  I thought it
was about the *utility* of types, or more precisely type assignment.

-- 
John Cowan <jcowan@r...>     http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Data binding as type definition
    • From: amyzing@t... (Amelia A Lewis)

• References:
  • Data binding as type definition
    • From: Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@t...>

• Prev by Date: RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• Next by Date: RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• Previous by thread: Data binding as type definition
• Next by thread: Re: Data binding as type definition
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread