[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: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 18:32:49 -0800
• References: <8BD7226E07DDFF49AF5EF4030ACE0B7E05571575@r...> <200203060231.g262Vau12882@d...>

Joe English wrote:
> 
>...
> 
> Of course this may just be a lack of imagination on my part;
> there may be many compelling use cases for xsi:type, I just
> can't think of any.  In most applications I've written,
> by the time a function has its hands on a piece of data,
> it already knows what the relevant type is.

Think of it merely as a convenience feature that saves you the
application writer from writing little conversion functions.

 Paul Prescod

• References:
  • RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
  • Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
• Next by Date: XInclude v. Entities (was Re: canonicalization)
• Previous by thread: Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
• Next by thread: Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread