  Motivated by the two remarks, that the study of computability based on the
use of numberings -- Type 1 computability -- does not have to be restricted to
countable sets equipped with onto numberings, and that computable topologies
have been in part developed with the implicit hypothesis that the considered
spaces should be computably separable, we propose new definitions for Type 1
computable topological spaces. We define computable topological spaces without
making reference to a basis. Following Spreen, we show that the use of a formal
inclusion relation should be systematized, and that it cannot be avoided if we
want computable topological spaces to generalize computable metric spaces. We
also compare different notions of effective bases. The first one, introduced by
Nogina, is based on an effective version of the statement "a set $O$ is open if
for any point in $O$, there is a basic set containing that point and contained
in $O$''. The second one, associated to Lacombe, is based on an effective
version of "a set $O$ is open if it can be written as a union of basic open
sets''. We show that neither of these notions of basis is completely
satisfactory: Nogina bases do not permit to define computable topologies unless
we restrict our attention to countable sets, and the conditions associated to
Lacombe bases are too restrictive, and they do not apply to metric spaces
unless we add effective separability hypotheses. We define a new notion of
basis, based on an effective version of the Nogina statement, but adding to it
several classically empty conditions, expressed in terms of formal inclusion
relations. Finally, we obtain a new version of the theorem of Moschovakis which
states that the Lacombe and Nogina approaches coincide on countable recursive
Polish spaces, but which applies to sets equipped with non-onto numberings, and
with effective separability as a sole hypothesis.
