I think this is a good idea, although we might need to be careful. The XML
Schema Part 2 data types are tied very much to syntactic expression in XML
documents. That might work but it is not quite the same as talking about
the data type of the value as it exists ephemerally in the hosting
implementation of an evaluator and is taken in and delivered out to the
application.
I'm not sure how we make the bridge between what the implementation has and
what might be persisted as a calculation result or a value that is taken
into a calculation.
The XML Schema Part 2 might help, but we need to look more closely.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 12:30
To:
Subject: [office-formula] Data types
Greetings,
For the agenda tomorrow, can the data types in chapter 3 be on the agenda?
Question: For datatypes defined in XML Schema part 2, is the a reason we
can't use that as a reference?
I realize that for REFERENCE, REFERENCELIST that we have to define those
but that is a far smaller number than the ones we define now. (And
thanks to David the world now has a workable definition of
basis/yearfrac. Worth all the effort for that alone.)
I won't delete the material pending our discussion tomorrow.
Hope everyone is having a great day!
Patrick
--
Patrick Durusau
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
