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

Re: Objections to / uses of PSVI?

• To: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
• Subject: Re: Objections to / uses of PSVI?
• From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>
• Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 09:19:33 -0400
• Cc: xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• References: <3CE193C0.7290457C@r...> <3CE1AC4A.2060606@d...> <3CE24084.C6ECAB3E@r...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/20020510

> Would you be averse to something PSVI-like if it only meant returning a
> much-restricted set of simple data types?

It comes closer, but I'd have to think about it more before I commit my 
vote. :)  As pointed out in other messages, no conventional programming 
language has native support for all the XSD primitives, so many of them 
are going to be mapped to strings (or subclassed, for type-safety).

If you only had primitive types, then don't you lose default values for 
complex types?  Doesn't that mean you now have to always send the 
container element?  If so, how can you express container-with-nothing 
versus container-with-all-defaults?  I may have a basic 
misunderstanding, but it seems like that opens a big can of works.

In addition, once you limit to just primitives, it seems to me you can 
work purely on syntax/structure.

So if you can use just syntax, and you can't omit complex containers, 
then you might as well work purely on syntax and throw out PSVI as a 
requirement for searching and querying XML documents.  I'm in favor of that.

Is there a flaw in my logic?
	/r$

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Objections to / uses of PSVI?
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>

• References:
  • Objections to / uses of PSVI?
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
  • Re: Objections to / uses of PSVI?
    • From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>
  • Re: Objections to / uses of PSVI?
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Objections to / uses of PSVI?
• Next by Date: Re: Objections to / uses of PSVI?
• Previous by thread: Re: Objections to / uses of PSVI?
• Next by thread: Re: Objections to / uses of PSVI?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread