[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: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 07:54:57 -0800
• In-reply-to: <3C857FD1.DB1D2EE6@p...>
• References: <3C857FD1.DB1D2EE6@p...> <8BD7226E07DDFF49AF5EF4030ACE0B7E05571575@r...> <200203060231.g262Vau12882@d...>

Paul Prescod wrote:
> 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. [...]
>
> Think of it merely as a convenience feature that saves you the
> application writer from writing little conversion functions.

That makes sense.

I do almost all of my XML processing in Tcl and Haskell;
the former is untyped so conversion is implicit, and the
latter is statically typed so dynamic type hints don't help
any.  But I can see where this would be useful in a latently
typed language like Python or Scheme; a general-purpose
data binding/type converter utility could use xsi:type
to determine what kind of application object to manufacture.


--Joe English

  jenglish@f...

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• References:
  • Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • 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: XML with PHP
• Next by Date: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
• 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