On Sep 1, 2009, at 4:09 PM, Will Norris wrote:
> There are a number of places where the text talks about the value
> type of a particular element. For example:
>
>> <Subject> is a xs:anyURI value which identifies a resource.
>
> Now technically, <Subject> is NOT of type "xs:anyURI", it's of type
> "xrd:anyURI" (note the different namespace). xrd:anyURI is a very
> lightweight extension of xs:anyURI which allows for arbitrary
> attributes. So while it is inaccurate to say that the <Subject>
> element is of type "xs:anyURI", it would not necessarily be
> inaccurate to say that the text content of the <Subject> element is
> of type xs:anyURI.
>
> Do folks think that the above sentence should be updated to reflect
> this, or am I just splitting hairs? If it should be changed, should
> it be changed to declare a type of xrd:anyURI? Or rather should it
> stick with xs:anyURI and just be more specific that the **value** of
> the element has that type?
Just thinking that one way to reword the above sentence would be to
replace "is" with "contains":
> <Subject> contains a xs:anyURI value which identifies a resource.
That implies that the type applies to the text content of the
element. eh?
