• From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>
• To: xml-dev@l..., "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 18:08:04 -0400

Stuart Naylor wrote:

> I find it a little strange the idea of representing unicode translations
of
> binary data types.

And all this time I'd thought that binary datatypes were merely grafted on
top of the fundamental XML unicode text as a convenience for CPUs that
prefer to deal with particularly structured binary bits.

> If a service or application is going to use a schema then it probaly has
the
> logic to deal with the underlying data.
> I like things simple like myself and with something as fundemental as a
> precision number or integer do I not already have my schema embeded
already
> with the decimal point.
>

But realize that the _underlying data_ is text and the fundamental basis of
XML is unicode. I see being able to manipulate elements as patterns of text
a _good thing_. Suppose we find out tomorrow that the fundamental unit of
some new amazingly powerful optical processor is 17.3 bit words. XML and XML
data will be fine.

-Jonathan

• References:
  • RE: atoms, molecules
    • From: Stuart Naylor <indtec@e...>

• Prev by Date: Re: So what do SOAP and XML-RPC buy you? (was Re: MassiveCross-Post:The State of XML-RPC, April 2001)
• Next by Date: Apparent contradiction in use of PEs inside internal entity defs
• Previous by thread: RE: atoms, molecules
• Next by thread: Re: atoms, molecules
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread