Re: The privilege of XML parsing - Data types, binary XML and
Hi Roger, >I am not clear on what you are saying. Consider this: ><aircraft> > <elevation>12000</elevation> ></aircraft> >Suppose that I create a schema for the aircraft and elevation elements. > declare that the elevation element should hold an integer that is >restricted to a range of 0 - 20000. Thus, the schema is defining a >"data model". Are you saying that such a data model is bad, that there >should be no such model and it should be up to applications to interpret >the data? Thus, one application may interpret 12000 as an integer, >another may interpret it as a string, another may interpret it as still >something else? >Isn't a data model a contract between the sender and the receiver? If >we have agreed to this contract then we can effectively communicate, >right? In my experience: 1. the amount of useful contract stuff that you can enshrine in any declarative syntax is a lot less that many people think. 2. The amount of concrete shared datatypes that can be enshrined without getting into platform/application specific datatypes is low. Having said that, I am not averse to data types. I'm averse to them being in the core where they infect everyone whether your like it or not. I'm advocating the use of a pipelined parsing paradigm in which datatype ornamentation of the tree is cleanly separated from the tree itself. regards, Sean http://seanmcgrath.blogspot.com
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