• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Some random noise on rational type systems for XML
• From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
• Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 16:04:43 +1000
• References: <20030506182451.4f40d846.amyzing@t...> <20030507012838.GE3507@c...>

> Amelia A. Lewis scripsit:

> > First principle: the XML ur-type is "string".  Everything in XML can be
> > represented as a string (MUST be representable as a string).  It can
> > therefore be manipulated as a string--truncated, concatenated,
> > case-transformed, etc.  

If you make your ur-type "string", doesn't that mean that you are throwing
out the value-space/lexical-space distinction?   How is a integer value
a subtype of a string? 

I guess among the possibilities are that value spaces and lexical spaces
form distinct hierarchies, so a data type should be a mapping from one or more
lexical types to one or more value types. 

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Some random noise on rational type systems for XML
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Some random noise on rational type systems for XML
    • From: james anderson <james.anderson@s...>

• References:
  • Some random noise on rational type systems for XML
    • From: Amelia A.Lewis <amyzing@t...>
  • Re: Some random noise on rational type systems for XML
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: (data) medium is the message
• Next by Date: Re: Polemicism
• Previous by thread: Re: Some random noise on rational type systems for XML
• Next by thread: Re: Some random noise on rational type systems for XML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread