DataLinks and ID data types.

[Markus Demleitner]

Hi Pat,

On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 12:52:03PM -0700, Patrick Dowler wrote:
> I think this is really a bug requiring an erratum, which I would be happy
> to write up asap.

I'm agreed on the bug nature, and I'm grateful for the the write-up

> * side issue: I think it would be legit for someone to also specify an
> xtype like xtype="uri" (because I think that's already permitted and
> matches the whole meaning of xtype) but I don't know if I would write that
> into the erratum or not... because I don't really think it needs to be
> written it into the specification to be allowed. Would anyone actively want
> this written in?

If we do that at all, that ought to be a different erratum.  

My question would be: What's the use case for that extra annotation?
Is there anything that would evaluate it?

         -- Markus