Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Iceberg development (was Re: maps)
 > Which is to say, there's nothing wrong with inventing new XML > APIs, go > to it, just don't fool yourself that there's One True API out there > waiting to be found. Presumably we can end up with a number of APIs > that is greater than one and smaller than the total number of > applications. -Tim Right. The question is now back again as to whether there are two main camps in XML: those who need types and those who don't. Even that's an oversimplification, but it may fit the 80/20 rule. :0) Those who need types are those who are going to store character data in language primitives. It may prove useful to them to know that a data item is an integer. It may not be an integer that is lexically understood by the application, in which case a locale formula has to be developed that translates the incoming lexical representation to a native one. But you know it's an integer, so you know there is some way to do it. Specifying value spaces (ranges, for continuous value spaces) would be an interesting trick: you can't do it without resorting to a lexical representation of some kind. Maybe that's done narratively, through a spec doc (or mathematical proofs), or maybe it's possible (I don't say likely), that there's a cannonical representation for a type that everyone can agree to, if not use locally. And then maybe we should just shove type information in the documents themselves. I think you could subvert the namespace prefix mechanism to do just that. Truly evil. But we needn't call it XML. Call it Typed Metalanguage (TML), and make it backwards compatible with XML. MUHAHAHA... 
|
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
|
|||||||||
