It's not a problem :-). The main effort is in getting the validation,
presentation, etc done. To add new datatypes or syntax is relatively
straightforward. And I'm not doing the whole lot, either - just the
commonest ones. And I wouldn't go near the COBOL stuff.
>
>On the other hand, bearing what you say in mind, I think there may be
>a sane case to be made for decoupling the task of identifying the set
>of datatypes from that of defining the rest of the schema mechanics;
>however we end up specifying the datatypes, the heavy typechecking
>coding will be about the same, and it might be nice to give that a
>head-start.
>
You yourself came up with XML-TYPE or whatever it was called - about 10
webyears ago. IMO that was nearly a no-brainer and orthogonal to any other
effort - it would have helped other activities since.
And the arguments are unlikely to stray beyond what the precise definition
of some weird type is... I can live without min and max in that spec if it
helps.
>>I note that max and min have changed from being content to attributes.
>
>No! Read the early part of the spec. Per RDF, these things are
>*properties*, which can be given either as elements or attributes.
I admit I haven't given it very much detailed attention. But given that
there are ElementDefs and AttributeDefs and that the latter produce
attributes... But I will read it more carefully. NNTR
> -Tim
Peter Murray-Rust, Director Virtual School of Molecular Sciences, domestic
net connection
VSMS http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/vsms, Virtual Hyperglossary
http://www.venus.co.uk/vhg