Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Tags and Types (was Re: Re: maps)
 Uche Ogbuji wrote: > > > I see no reason why the exact same provision cannot be made in the case of > > > > > > <date>2002-08-06</date> > > > > > > In the schema, you can say: > > > > > > "A date formatted as specified in ISO-8601" > > > > yup. but this value _is_ tagged, it's not just a string. > > "Just a string" is the heart of this entire argument, and not a given premise. > In the end, if it can be expressed in XML, it is "just a string". The magic > is in the interpretation, and as long as you have the full tools for > interpretation, I don't see how gung-ho tagging is any less ambiguous, or more > valuable in any other respect, than the use of untagged content. The tags can > themselves be the full tools for interpretaion, but in this thread we are > looking at cases where this is not necessary, because of convention. Geospace > and dates are the example. And my claim is that tagging the data _reduces_ the ambiguity. Now you may claim that there is no ambiguity in which case you can interpret your (non-XML) strings. My claim is that if there is ambiguity, tagging reduces it. > > > > Besides the vast majority of Americans write: > > > > <date>02-03-2004</date> > > > > and so when you have different specs that start mixing the order of years, > > months, days it _is_ ambiguous. If you write out the date as is often seen > > in legal documents it is the equivalent of the marked up version: Where is the schema in the above example? I don't see one. I see only <date>02-03-2004</date> Now we might use the <date> tag to somehow find a schema but suppose the naked 02-03-2004 where is the schema? Granted if you have _already ascertained_ that this value is typed a schema might not be necessary, but is that the case here? > > No. It is not the slightest bit ambiguous because the schema disambiguates > it. Your example also needs a schema to disambiguate it (as Joe pointed out, > you don't state whether it's CE or BCE), so I still don't consider it less > ambiguous. Again, what schema? Suppose the string "10". What does it represent? a) a title of a movie b) a decimal age c) a binary number? it might be any of the above. > > I think Joe made a killer point with his mention that you probably don't write > <quantity><hundreds>1</hundreds><tens>4</tens><ones>4</ones></quantity> I missed the point of this one. All numbers I've seen writted (unlike dates) are written right to left in increasing significance. > > Which I think is the logical conclusion of your position. After all, > <quantity>144</quantity> could be in octal, hex, or any numerical base above > 5, no? > "144" -- could mean either a number or not, might be the name of a truck or plane, might be a number, could be a code, who knows? <quantity>144</quantity> -- the meaning may be constrained by the meaning of the <quantity> element. The english name of the element i.e. the element type, suggests that the value is to be interpreted as a number. Usually numbers are written in decimal but who knows. <quantity xsi:type="xsd:decimal">144</quanity> -- no ambiguity in the number, but what the number quantifies might be anything -- and so we need to look at the context of this. Which is the logical conclusion. Jonathan 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
