[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: XPath 1.5? (was RE: typing and markup)
At 11:46 AM 5/7/2002 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: >But Simon asks a pertinent point: who bears the costs >for unused features? The developer? The framework >developer? This becomes a nasty problem for buying >and using tools. We need to start with a list of which features will be unused, and what their costs are. I like use cases as a way of seeing which features will be used. I agree with those who have said that many XML Schema datatypes are not likely to be used. This does add to complexity. I wish we could pare these down, but I don't see how, now that XML Schema is a rec. And some of us tried, during the development of XML Schema, to pare down on the number of datatypes, but we did not prevail. The datatypes of XML Schema bloat our Functions and Operators document - but they do so by adding functions that are at least very easy to implement, if tedious.l So I understand on a fairly concrete level what people are talking about here, I just don't know anything useful we can do about it. In general, I suspect that a query language that is integrated with the type system of XML Schema is a significant simplification for the user, not a complication, because it allows the XML to be processed directly, and does not require mapping to other type systems before processing can occur. The user does not have to figure out how dates should be sorted or how they map to a particular implementation's date type, the user simply does queries on dates, and they act like the user expects them to. Jonathan
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|