Check out the DCD submission

Simon St.Laurent SimonStL at
Tue Aug 11 22:41:17 BST 1998

Tim Bray:
>Not now!  Everyone agrees that we need datatypes.  I expect some cheerful
>& constructive bloodletting in the SIG & WG as to which set of datatypes 
>we need.  Anybody who invests effort in that set at this time is spinning 

Peter Murray-Rust:
>It's not a problem :-). The main effort is in getting the validation,
>presentation, etc done. To add new datatypes or syntax is relatively
>straightforward. And I'm not doing the whole lot, either - just the
>commonest ones. And I wouldn't go near the COBOL stuff.

Dan Brickley:
>So separating out the list of types from the mechanics
>seems particularly well motivated given that there are possibly three related
>W3C activities which could have their own way of representating the
>chosen types.

One of my biggest complaints about XML-Data (and a lot of why we started out 
XSchema) was that it did too much too fast in one giant spec.  I'd be _much_ 
happier to see the W3C hash out data types (and possibly their relationship to 
assorted Unicode representations) in a _separate_ document.  

Data types are critically important, and I'd like to see them given the full 
attention they deserve rather than as part of something else.

This would also improve their reusability, making it much easier to refer to 
the short and useful XML-Types spec, for instance, rather than Section 4 of 
the DCD spec, which only XML developers and possibly XML document authors are 
likely to read.

Simon St.Laurent
Dynamic HTML: A Primer / XML: A Primer / Cookies

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at
Archived as:
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list