[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Unnecessary decoration (was Re: Stupid Question)

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Unnecessary decoration (was Re: Stupid Question)
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: 06 Mar 2002 12:30:10 -0500
• In-reply-to: <3C863F38.A1DF97A5@p...>
• References: <3C857FD1.DB1D2EE6@p...> <8BD7226E07DDFF49AF5EF4030ACE0B7E05571575@r.... com> <200203060231.g262Vau12882@d...><200203061554.g26Fsvu14989@d...> <3C863F38.A1DF97A5@p...>

On Wed, 2002-03-06 at 11:09, Paul Prescod wrote:
> The usual trick for statically typed languages is to compile the schema
> into code that implements the conversions for you. Once again its merely
> a convenience.

Once you've done that, do you still have any use for the PSVI as extra
annotations to individual documents?

There seems to be a big gap between design-time usefulness of the PSVI
and its run-time usefulness.
 
-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Unnecessary decoration (was Re: Stupid Question)
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• References:
  • Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
  • Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
  • Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• Prev by Date: schema content model question
• Next by Date: [Ann] Mobile GPS Demonstration Platform project description posted....
• Previous by thread: Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
• Next by thread: Re: Unnecessary decoration (was Re: Stupid Question)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread