James Clark wrote:
> I've been thinking about Mike's suggestion that we should
> xsd:ID/IDREF/IDREFS instead of a:attributeType. The more I think about this
> the more it makes sense from the point of view of the user. The problem is
> how to specify it.
>
I like this proposal. In particular, I like separation of "ID-sound" and validity.
I think that the user should not be forced to use the XML Schema datatype library, which
is buggy and complicated, only to use ID/IDREF/IDREFS. Is it OK if an implementation
implements only ID/IDREF/IDREFS (and possibly easy built-in datatypes and facets) and do
not implement other complicated datatypes and facets?
> One problem is that this isn't anything to do with annotations, so either we
> would have to call our spec something other than "DTD Compatibility
> Annotations" (maybe simply "DTD Compatibility") or we would have to move
> this feature into a separate spec.
Probably as part of the guideline document for using XML Schema Part 2 from RELAX NG?
Cheers,
Makoto
