• From: Robin Berjon <robin@j...>
• To: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@c...>
• Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:01:49 +0100

On Feb 18, 2008, at 18:23, Pete Cordell wrote:
> Original Message From: "Elliotte Harold":
>> The lack of types is what makes XML a distinct improvement over  
>> some competing efforts. It is not an accident or an oversight, but  
>> part of the core value proposition of XML.
>
> Maybe for some.  But not for all.

You already have a namespace URI and a local name, why add a type?  
I've only ever seen xsi:type used badly. Document-level casting is  
silly, really. It's like saying "what this really is is a whale,  
that's what it is, but I'm going to call it a lemur, just because. I  
think someone said I could only have lemurs. Yeah it's a lemur; a  
humongous, blubbery water lemur."

--
Robin Berjon
........................................................................
"Life has to be given a meaning because of the obvious fact that
  it has no meaning."
                         -- Henry Miller

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: ten years later, time to repeat it?
    • From: David Carver <d_a_carver@y...>
  • Re: ten years later, time to repeat it?
    • From: Manos Batsis <manos_lists@g...>

• References:
  • ten years later, time to repeat it?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: ten years later, time to repeat it?
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: ten years later, time to repeat it?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: ten years later, time to repeat it?
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>
  • Re: ten years later, time to repeat it?
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: ten years later, time to repeat it?
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>