Re: most contested area of xml schema interoperability?
At 07:27 AM 6/10/2003 +1200, Berend de Boer wrote: > >>>>> "Jonathan" == Jonathan Robie > <jonathan.robie@d...> writes: > > Jonathan> 3. The type hierarchies are not simple - the > Jonathan> distinct hierarchies for complex and simple types and > Jonathan> the distinction between elements and complex types > Jonathan> result in a more cluttered type system than that found > Jonathan> in most OO or relational systems. This is not the kind > Jonathan> of type lattice that a good datahead would normally > Jonathan> design. > >But it is the type part that is adopted by most other XML based >languages like Relax NG and XForms. Can't be too bad :-) Well, only the simple types are being incorporated into the other schema languages - and I believe that the extensible type system of the simple types is a very good thing. I'm not wild about all the Australian types (gDay and the other date/time types), and I wish integer were a primitive type rather than something derived from decimal by restriction, but the framework for constructing simple types is very elegant, I think. The type system as a whole, when you add in the complex types and substitution groups and all ... well, I agree, it's not too bad, it's workable but overly complex. 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