[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)
> I would love to reduce the complexity of the solution, but > I don't think we can deny that the requirement exists. What about denying that there should be 'a' solution in the first place? Publishing people work with strings, symbols and sometimes numbers; where they have a need for complex data-types, they may have to work with pre-existing dataformats that they don't want to have to convert all the time. (In particular, for dates.) Database people have many types based on efficient storage and access. Data communications people and i18n people tend to want to mandate global formats. They each have separate requirements; meeting any one group's needs is nice, meeting two group's needs should be enough, but meeting all three group's needs has proved to be overkill (and, actually, impossible). XML Schemas has failed to meet the needs for mapping to standard types for people who have non-XML-Schema lexical forms (e.g. US dates, Ja/Nein). Why foist an inadequate and convoluted schema language on otherwise quite straightforward technology such as XPath? Why increase the difficulty of implementation so much, if an Xpath system must also be PSVI aware in order to call itself a full implementation? Why wreck the party for the rest of us? Cheers Rick Jelliffe
|
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
|