[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Data binding as type definition
Okay, try again. The observation that "using a single vendor solution reduces interoperability problems" is not a new one. Neither is it terribly interesting. .Net resolves a number of the impedance mismatches between the types defined in XSDL part 2 and the .Net languages by fiat. That's fine, if you're only going to use .Net. I could equally well create a canonical mapping for Java, or Perl, or Lisp, but lacking ownership of those languages, it's likely that someone else could define a canonical mapping, with different nuances, which produced different, incompatible, sometimes inoperable behavior. It is also likely that those neither of those canonical mappings would fully interoperate with .Net, based as they would be on different assumptions, and lacking the MS-internal review that .Net language bindings presumably go through. So, is it better to define a type in XML as something that can be validated, or as something that maps to type A in language Z, type B in language Y, type A again in language X, and type L in language O? I submit that attempting to define XML types by mapping to a set of native types in privileged languages is neither robust nor extensible. It seems to me that, on the model of validation of structured types, it is possible to define unstructured (simple) types by how they are validated, and that that definition is interoperable. Amy! -- Amelia A. Lewis amyzing@t... alicorn@m... There's someone in my head, but it's not me. -- Pink Floyd This is a digitally signed message part
|
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
|