• To: "Mike Champion" <mc@x...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
• From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
• Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 10:52:51 -0800
• Thread-index: AcHEc1CI0Tk7IhTaQ7+UgZQD8+6gSAAAz0iw
• Thread-topic: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@x...] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 10:26 AM
> To: xml-dev@l...
> Subject:  Stupid Question (was RE:  XML 
> doesn't deserve its "X".)
> 
> 
> Why not just put the type information inline and
> make XML more "self-describing" (please don't
> shoot me ...) 
> 	<myData>
> 		<foo my:type="Int">0xffffffff</foo>
> 		<bar my:type="String">Someday/bar>
> 		<baz my:type="Date">20371031</baz>
>       </myData>
> 
> 

By the way you can do this in XML, it's called xsi:type[0] but you still
need a schema to obtain the actual declarations/definitions of the types
in question. 

[0] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#xsi_type

-- 
THINGS TO DO IF I BECOME AN EVIL OVERLORD #51
If one of my dungeon guards begins expressing concern over the
conditions 
in the beautiful princess' cell, I will immediately transfer him to a
less 
people-oriented position.

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