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

RE: Is XML Doomed ...? (Was: Polemicism)

• To: "'Dave Pawson'" <dpawson@n...>,"'J.Pietschmann'" <j3322ptm@y...>
• Subject: RE: Is XML Doomed ...? (Was: Polemicism)
• From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
• Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 18:01:48 +0100
• Cc: "'Xml-Dev'" <xml-dev@l...>
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <5.2.0.9.2.20030510124206.00af3fe0@p...>
• Reply-to: <michael.h.kay@n...>

> The W3C references an ISO date format, but no 'arithmetic' to 
> go with it, which is certainly needed I guess. Either way, I 
> doubt the multiplicity of options in the 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-operators/> #durations-dates-times
> list is really needed. It appears as bloat IMO.
> 

I share your frustration. It seems completely disproportionate that 8 of
the 19 primitive data types in XML Schema should be devoted to the
measurement of time, and that 74 of the 211 functions and operators
(including variants - on a rough count) should be devoted to
chronological calculations. Believe you me, some of us have tried very
hard to simplify things in this area. But unfortunately, people have
been trying to simplify the calendar for thousands of years, and for
various reasons they haven't got very far.

Michael Kay

• References:
  • Re: Is XML Doomed ...? (Was: Polemicism)
    • From: Dave Pawson <dpawson@n...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Ten new XQuery, XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 Working Drafts
• Next by Date: Re: nostalgia (was RE: Ten new XQuery)
• Previous by thread: Re: Is XML Doomed ...? (Was: Polemicism)
• Next by thread: Streaming XML Processing
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread