On Aug 18, 2005, at 8/18/05 9:14 PM, Michelle Raymond wrote:
> I too, would support the use of URIs. I'd even go so far as to change
> it to the type anyUri and to the <valueListURN><value> format and risk
> public comment in the "no, that won't work" manner. It would be
> cleaner and more consistent with the rest of the spec.
Um, I'm confused now. If we were to use URIs... and for me that's
still a big "if," since I've yet to hear anyone actually explain how
they can represent all the various addressing schemes out there, or
even claim that they can... but if we were to do so, why then would
we need the <valueListURN>/<value> structure? At that point wouldn't
we just have a list of URIs?
- Art
