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

Re: Why datatypes?

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Why datatypes?
• From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
• Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 19:47:12 +0000
• In-reply-to: <3.0.6.32.20020605190930.0142fb48@m...>
• References: <3.0.6.32.20020605190930.0142fb48@m...>

Gustaf Liljegren <gustaf.liljegren@x...> wrote:

| Ever since XML Schema started to evolve and the talk about datatypes in 
| XML took off, I've been wondering secretly why XML validation needs the 
| concept of datatypes at all.

It doesn't.

| XML is a plain text format, so content validation in XML should be no 
| different from regular pattern matching. 

And referential consistency checking (as in IDREF/ENTITY/NOTATION declared
values.)  Exactly right. 

| If my application wants an integer, all I'd do would be to check if all
| characters are in the range 0-9. Regular expressions would be enough for
| that. If possible, I'd have this check written in the schema, or some
| special module of patterns attached to the schema.

Again, exactly right.  Semantics are at the application level, and the
universe of semantics is unbounded.  Try to shoehorn this into XML - a
lexical formalism - invites the Farglebarp Problem [*], in spades.  The
politics of it so far have determined that a bunch of DB-wonks and type
theorists have been allowed to transfer the costs of "standardizing" their
particular hobbyhorses onto everyone else.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=pmfirtkcuscft4s6agsod570jd1oiig8ra@4...

(IOW, the fundamental problem with XML Schema is not technical: it's
social.  But geeks have a habit of shying away from such unmentionables.)

• References:
  • Why datatypes?
    • From: Gustaf Liljegren <gustaf.liljegren@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Interesting mailing list & a rare broadside
• Next by Date: Re: Interesting mailing list & a rare broadside
• Previous by thread: Re: Why datatypes?
• Next by thread: Re: Why datatypes?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread