Re: Still not the essence of XML (was Re: S-expressi
At 07:40 PM 1/11/2003 +1100, Rick Jelliffe wrote: >So their title and opening section are misleading or wrong still: not the >essence of XML but the essense of XML Schema. I guess by hanging around >XQuery people all the time, all the authors ever hear of XML is XML+WXS >conflated, but I wish they would spare the rest of us.* At least their >abstract is correct. And the body of the paper? I found it very >interesting on a lot of fronts, and well worth a delve. > >* Perhaps it shows mindset at work that XQuery is "reforming" XML from a >relatively untyped format with strings and tokens suitable for >loosely-coupled systems which can be used with any datatyping >convention, to a strongly typed format with a fixed number of primitive >built-in types suitable for tightly-coupled systems: I heard a member of >the XQuery WG say "without types you can't do anything!" Members of the Query WG are all over the map on this, but you hardly need XML Schema for XQuery - for instance, only one of the Use Cases actually uses a schema, and that use case is specifically designed to use a schema. Another use case, Use Case R, would probably be improved by giving it a schema. Of course, XQuery exploits whatever type information is present. I don't get the loosely-coupled vs. tightly coupled reference. Can you give me an example of a loosely coupled scenario that is harder to handle in XQuery than in, say, XSLT? 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