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

Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract

• To: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>,xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract
• From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
• Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 13:22:19 -0400
• In-reply-to: <1033233575.31981.53.camel@ibook>
• References: < <5.1.0.14.0.20020928074203.022ebec8@n...><200209280146.g8S1kR319235@d...><5.1.0.14.0.20020927194520.00bcae40@n...><5.1.0.14.0.20020927194520.00bcae40@n...><5.1.0.14.0.20020927180018.04398a18@n...><5.1.0.14.0.20020928074203.022ebec8@n...>

At 07:19 PM 9/28/2002 +0200, Eric van der Vlist wrote:
>On Sat, 2002-09-28 at 13:50, Jonathan Robie wrote:
> > To me, the most fundamental reason for datatypes is to allow them to be
> > part of the contract between producers and consumers of data.
>
>I wouldn't like to live in a dull world where there is to be an explicit
>contract between every producer and every consumer and where they don't
>exchange anything but data... :-)

I never implied that this was the case - and it has almost never been the 
case in my professional career, except in the sense that all this stuff we 
exchange, of various levels of structure, is data.

On the other hand, structured data *does* exist, and there are clear 
implied contracts associated with it.

Jonathan

• References:
  • Datatypes - it's in the contract
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • Re: limits of the generic
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
  • Re: limits of the generic
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • Re: limits of the generic
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract
• Next by Date: Re: limits of the generic
• Previous by thread: Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract
• Next by thread: Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread