[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: DTDs, W3C Schemas, RELAX NG, Schematron?
I think you are right that value space vs lexical space is at the heart of some of the more contentious threads. But that is exactly where this discussion seems to run off the rails. One group believes that syntax and structure are the focus and limit of XML and that once past that boundary, one is discussing an application language. Another group believes it useful to define a value space, aka, primitive types, that any XML application language can use. Another group believes it best to define a means to add pluggable types and not to define any set which all applications must support. Data is portable. Systems interoperate. How much interoperability is wanted or affordable? What options do we lose if we strengthen the coupling to a primitive type set? I don't think I could work with relational systems without value types, and we do seem to share them among that application type sensibly; but is that the only application type one would have to share them with? Today, #FIXED looks pretty awesome for its simplicity, but of course, one has to read the schema/DTD to "know" it. xsi:type looks pretty good, but it is still just a way to annotate in accordance with a data dictionary. Bytes must change state and that requires a value space. I don't see any way out of this except to define a means to plug in types with a non-normative primitive set for free. len From: Don Box [mailto:dbox@m...] In case it wasn't obvious, that sentence should have read "What good are datatypes if one CANNOT work in terms of the value space..."
|
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
|