|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Why XML data typing is hard
>Then your example proposed range of values is inappropriate because "4,50" >is a valid float from an I18N point of view. "4,50" is a localized rendition of a float value. But in XML we should encourage a rendition-independent encoding of information. (One reason for having data types is that the default rendition can be determined from the data type and the locale.) The encoding we choose for floats does not need to be constrained by human conventions. Any of the notations used in languages such as C, Java, and SQL would do nicely: and fortunately they are all very similar. In fact, I don't think defining data types in XML is harder than in any other language. In many ways it's easier, because we don't have to worry about defining operations, only valid states (and perhaps equivalence rules). In principle I'm quite happy with data types being defined as an optional module above XML. My only concerns would be (a) that the XML family of standards is developing a rather large collection of optional modules which don't always work well together (as witness Namespaces and XSL), and (b) that a bolted-on standard might be constrained not to extend the current DTD syntax. Mike Kay xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||

Cart








