• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
• From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 14:55:15 -0800
• In-reply-to: <TSVSIHIEA842JE41WQE85QKYSLJWT1Y.3c853c51@MChamp>
• References: <TSVSIHIEA842JE41WQE85QKYSLJWT1Y.3c853c51@MChamp>

Mike Champion  wrote:

> I was basically wondering why xsi:type isn't more widely used,
> in the context of Nicolas Lehunen's lament that the PSVI isn't
> widely supported.  Putting the type information in the instance
> would, in my "stupid" thinking, hit the 80:20 point by giving
> applications access to the type of an element without all sorts
> of currently unsupported voodoo.

I'm having a hard time envisioning a scenario where having
'xsi:type' would be useful to an application.

Suppose I'm a program.  If you hand me a piece of data and
tell me that it's an Integer, I still won't know what to
do with it.  Now I might be able to make some sense out
of a QUANTITY attribute on a LINEITEM element inside a
PURCHASEORDER, but in that case I'm already expecting it
to be an Integer.


--Joe English

  jenglish@f...

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserveits "X".)
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• References:
  • RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserveits "X".)
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
• Next by Date: Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserveits "X".)
• Previous by thread: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserveits "X".)
• Next by thread: Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserveits "X".)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread