[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: maps
On Sun, 2002-08-04 at 13:43, Jeff Rafter wrote: > I think that there are root types somewhere in there... I don't know how you > would express it without a notion for numeric values though. This sounds > like a double edged complaint-- "They didn't give me enough" "They gave me > too much". If they had given all of the types possible it would have just > been more fuel for the fire. Both are true. Because the specification requires full support of an inconsistent collection of datatypes, it has given nearly everyone too much. That is, it has given database programmers types that they can't use, strongly-typed languages types that they can't use, cartographers types that they can't use ... but must nonetheless support. Because the specification prohibits the creation of alternate type libraries, it has given everyone too little. Not all database types are supported, not all reasonable strongly-typed-language types are supported, and as Simon notes, there's inadequate support for cartography (or typography, or numerous other things). I realize that there is a wide consensus in the XML/web community that optional bits are bad. However, this, it seems to me, is a counter-case. There is no such thing as a universal type system. I think that XML Schema part 2 should not have been a collection of types and facets, but a language for the creation of datatype libraries, and ideally a mechanism for registering those datatype libraries as well. But I've ranted on the topic, at rather more length, elsewhere (see xml.com, if you're interested). Amy! -- Amelia A. Lewis amyzing@t... alicorn@m... Money can't buy happiness, but poverty can't buy *anything*.
|
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
|