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

RE: XPath 1.5? (was RE: typing and markup)

• To: 'Uche Ogbuji' <uche.ogbuji@f...>
• Subject: RE: XPath 1.5? (was RE: typing and markup)
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 08:40:40 -0500
• Cc: 'Jonathan Robie' <jonathan.robie@d...>, "'Simon St.Laurent'" <simonstl@s...>, "'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>

Yes to declarative is better.  The implications are harder when 
that declaration has to be shared with lots of previously 
unengaged individuals (which is what companies, countries, 
etc. come down to).  I agree there are multiple means and 
that the architecture as spec'd should account for that 
by modularity.  I disagree with those that assert what is 
in XSD is useless.  I agree that the spec writers should 
be very careful of normative inclusion into other languages 
by reference unless they strictly intend to limit the 
scope of operation of those languages.

International standards even at the simplest of type  
levels, elements and attributes, are already very hard 
to create.  What do they call area codes in Nigeria, 
Britain, France, etc.?   We have a fellow here who 
insists that everywhere else in the world, these are 
called "city codes".  On the other hand, I have a 
fellow in Britain who insists that is untrue.  Who 
to believe?  I have to wonder if naming the names 
is this hard for the same item of data, and the 
disparities among things like legal systems 
are so large, maybe a common set of declarations 
for datatype safety isn't that daunting.

I understand the issues of cost and variety in 
the programming languages.  The specs should be 
modular.  How many options can XML buyers afford?

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Uche Ogbuji [mailto:uche.ogbuji@f...]

Your implication, if I read you rightly, is that it's better to use declarative means to ensure this conformance rather than writing a lot of"code".

Believe me, I preach this gospel every day.

My point is that there is more than one way to declare constraints, and I don't think the way enshrined by XSDL is especially useful, nor do I believe it should receive consideration at the expense of other schemes.

• Prev by Date: Re: RE: PSVI and XPath 2.0 data model
• Next by Date: Re: XPath 1.5? (was RE: typing and markup)
• Previous by thread: Re: XPath 1.5? (was RE: typing and markup)
• Next by thread: Re: XPath 1.5? (was RE: typing and markup)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread