Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On 15 Jul 2005, at 08:24, Pete Cordell wrote: > The example that Elliotte gave earlier (<p>This is > <strong>very</strong> important</p>) could possibly have been handled > with an <xs:any namespace='xhtml'> construct. Do you have any other > examples of mixed use in data-oriented applications that would not be > treated as xhtml? For me, I really like the notion of being able to write an XML document, not necessarily XHTML, which contains information to be gleaned using XPath and XSLT. Mixed is where it's at. But I live in a world of code-heads. I keep seeing examples where the schema for a *document* is wrapped in WSDL and presented as a Web service. Code-heads expect to be able to turn a handle and be presented with Java or whatever and remain abstracted from all those nasty angle brackets. Whilst I might be willing to give up all sorts of bits of a schema language just to nurse-maid users of data binding tools into having a better time, I'm loathed to give up mixed given that turns my documents inside out. Eric's Catch 22 is the problem here, and it's a crying shame the data binding tools don't make a better fist of preserving the text which surrounds the nuggets of data they're often only interested in. -- http://blog.whatfettle.com
|
