/ James Clark <> was heard to say:
| <choice>
| <value type="xsd:token">foo</value>
| <value type="xsd:token">bar</value>
| </choice>
|
| looks nicer if we can default type on <value> to the builtin token type. My
Sorry if I've missed something in my struggle to catch up, but in what
sense is xsd:token the builtin token type? I thought we were
datatype-vocabulary neutral, allowing a binding to xsd if desired?
| guess is that the overwhelmingly majority of enumerations are tokens or
| types derived from tokens (which is almost equivalent to token from the
| point of view of what's allowed in the instance). Indeed this is the only
| case supported by SGML and XML 1.0. If we default the type attribute, then
| the common case would be written as:
|
| <choice>
| <value>foo</value>
| <value>bar</value>
| </choice>
That is compelling.
Be seeing you,
norm
--
| Things work out best for those who make the
XML Standards Engineer | best of the way things work out.
Technology Dev. Group |
Sun Microsystems, Inc. |
