• From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>
• To: <elharo@m...>
• Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:23:14 -0000

Original Message From: "Elliotte Harold":
> Pete Cordell wrote:
>
>> P.S. If we're looking for features, how about an xml:type attribute 
>> rather than having to use xsi:type?
>>
>
> That would be a bug, not a feature. I have zero interest in locking in any 
> one set of data types or privileging any one schema language.

The type for xsi:type is a QName.  You can use the types defined in XSD part 
2 if you like, or you can use your own types, which can be defined in XSD or 
some other schema language of your choice (or even defined in some 
completely different form such as narrative!).

> 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.

Regards,

Pete Cordell
Codalogic
For XML C++ data binding visit http://www.codalogic.com/lmx/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: ten years later, time to repeat it?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• 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...>