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

RE: Data binding as type definition

• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Data binding as type definition
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 17:51:41 -0400
• In-reply-to: <006a01c2118f$6e75bac0$0400a8c0@skonnardt20>
• References: <4.2.0.58.20020611153131.0215bcb0@p...>

At 03:32 PM 6/11/2002 -0600, Aaron Skonnard wrote:
> > Simon St.Laurent:
> > It provides it through a very limited set of transformations
> > from lexical to value which have their own peculiarities, and
> > blesses the value space almost exclusively.
>
>Can you expand on this?

Sure.  W3C XML Schema Datatypes is far more interested in the value space 
than the lexical space throughout.  Apart from xs:string, pretty much every 
aspect of that specification is about ensuring that a particular value 
space meets particular criteria.  It does offer the convenience of patterns 
for constraining the lexical (and thereby the value) space, and offers a 
few shreds of whitespace options, but I read that spec as describing a very 
narrow universe of values, not the wide universe of lexical possibilities 
that came with XML 1.0.

This is all well and good if all you care about is serializing information 
which already lives in a type system with constraints similar to those of 
W3C XML Schema, but it's a pretty complete disaster if you have any 
interest in supporting a wider range of lexical possibilities.  From the 
effective privileging of the value space to the complete inability to 
define new primitive types or additional facets, there's nothing in W3C XML 
Schema that seems interested in the lexical potential XML 1.0 has to offer.

Heck, there are times I wonder if W3C XML Schema is a terrified response to 
the wide-open potential of XML 1.0, a grotesque effort to close the 
Pandora's box of lexical expression that markup permits and indeed 
encourages - but maybe that's putting it a bit too strongly.

> > This is inadequate for those of us who care about lexical
> > flexibility, and your supposed agreement is effectively strong
> > disagreement.
>
>Man, you're so literal ;-) I thought we actually agreed on
>something this time.

Nope.  Not likely on this subject given what I know of your perspective on 
XML and XML processing.

Literalness is pretty crucial stuff here, and those fine distinctions are 
awfully useful.

Simon St.Laurent
"Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue

• References:
  • RE: Data binding as type definition
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • RE: Data binding as type definition
    • From: "Aaron Skonnard" <aarons@d...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Data binding as type definition
• Next by Date: Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• Previous by thread: RE: Data binding as type definition
• Next by thread: Re: Data binding as type definition
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread