Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Aaron Skonnard scripsit:
> > Yep. That's completely different from my notion of type (for
> > XML, anyway), which is a set of values with a common lexical
> > representation. That representation can include both markup
> > and textual representation.
>
> I agree with John that a type is a named value-space. I also agree with
> Simon that for type to be useful in XML, its value-space must correspond
> to a well-defined lexical-space. This is exactly what XML Schema
> provides.
I don't think "well-defined lexical space" can be taken to be synonymous
with "common lexical representation", though I don't quite understand
what Simon means by "common". A legitimate, though perhaps not very
useful, type would be "footype": {"foo", 32, 64, 79.9, "hike!"}, with
the obvious lexical representation {"foo", "32", "64", "79.9", "hike!"}.
But I don't know if Simon thinks this list of lexical representations
are "common".
--
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_
|
