DataLinks and ID data types.

[Mark Taylor]

On Fri, 3 Apr 2020, Markus Demleitner wrote:

> 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.  

It's pushing the usage of Erratum a little bit.
 
> My question would be: What's the use case for that extra annotation?
> Is there anything that would evaluate it?

--
Mark Taylor   Astronomical Programmer   Physics, Bristol University, UK
m.b.taylor at bris.ac.uk +44-117-9288776  http://www.star.bris.ac.uk/~mbt/