[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...>
• Subject: Re: Is XML Doomed ...? (Was: Polemicism)
• From: "J.Pietschmann" <j3322ptm@y...>
• Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 13:21:36 +0200
• Cc: Xml-Dev <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <5.2.0.9.2.20030510083321.022d6788@p...>
• References: <1a7.13eb056a.2becbbcb@a...> <1a7.13eb056a.2becbbcb@a...> <5.2.0.9.2.20030510083321.022d6788@p...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312

Dave Pawson wrote:
> I think the date addition is the one item I would support.
> Whether it needs to be a type I doubt, though obtaining
> formatting and date arithmetic are requested additions.

I meant, there ought to exist an independent, complete spec for
date types and the associated algebra as well as for regexps,
localized processing and a few other things, so that XSD/XPath
could include it by reference without an extended customization
and clarification layer. Imagine thre were a generally accepted
regexp spec so you could just say "... is a regexp according
to spec NNN, conformance level LL, character set as specified
in section X.Y" But no, there are half a zillion regexp specs
out there each with its own deficiencies and political baggage.
Similar for dates, it shouldn't have been necessary to define
a complete algebra for XPath.

J.Pietschmann

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

• References:
  • Is XML Doomed ...? (Was: Polemicism)
    • From: AndrewWatt2000@a...
  • Re: Is XML Doomed ...? (Was: Polemicism)
    • From: Dave Pawson <dpawson@n...>

• Prev by Date: nostalgia (was RE: Ten new XQuery)
• Next by Date: Re: Is XML Doomed ...? (Was: Polemicism)
• Previous by thread: Re: Is XML Doomed ...? (Was: Polemicism)
• Next by thread: Re: Is XML Doomed ...? (Was: Polemicism)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread