[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its

• To: 'Mike Champion' <mc@x...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:36:48 -0600

#FIXED enables the option to put it inline or to default it.
And what exactly does that buy us if a system doesn't use it, 
and what would it buy us if everyone doesn't use that system?

XML doesn't stop you from doing what you suggest.  
It just doesn't standardize it nor should it.  If 
you want OOPs, use Java or C#.  Why should XML be 
more extensible than it is?  Why does it have to 
fill niches occupied by the hardwoods?

XML is an evolutionary quandary; do more by having less, 
something like a dolphin.   The problem is confusing 
all of the applications layered around it to use it on the  
web system with XML 1.0.  There are lots of people, many 
many mucho lots, who fail to make that distinction.  Heaven 
help us if the members of the TAG fall into that group.

Parts and assemblies:  it's in the way that you use it.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@x...]

Why not just put the type information inline and
make XML more "self-describing" (please don't
shoot me ...)
 
	<myData>
		<foo my:type="Int">0xffffffff</foo>
		<bar my:type="String">Someday/bar>
		<baz my:type="Date">20371031</baz>
      </myData>

• Prev by Date: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
• Next by Date: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
• Previous by thread: SAX, DOM or XPATH???
• Next by thread: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread