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

RE: The privilege of XML parsing - Data types,binary XM

• To: "'ht@c...'" <ht@c...>, Jeff Lowery <jlowery@s...>
• Subject: RE: The privilege of XML parsing - Data types,binary XM
• From: Jeff Lowery <jlowery@s...>
• Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:21:21 -0800
• Cc: "'Thomas B. Passin'" <tpassin@c...>, xml-dev@l...

> Indeed -- that's why W3C XML Schema _loosened_ the binding between
> document and schema, compared to XML 1.0 wrt DTDs -- an application
> (read 'consumer') is free to mandate its own W3C XML Schema (or none)
> in preference to whatever the author provides.  What's the problem?

Granted. However the XQuery WD identifies 44(?) types (most derived from
WXS) that it recognizes.  I think the authors of the WD have now tightly
bound types to a proposed Rec that would nevertheless by largely useful
without predefined types (other than, say, string and ID/IDREF).  That's a
case of authors' having a  type system preference that takes precendence
over consumers'. 

I'm not against schemas, you know that.  But I do find merit in the argument
of the bohemians that specifying a type system in core recs is unwise. The
fortunes of the WXS datatypes should rise and fall of their own merit, that
merit being determined by consumer preference.  I think many of us dataheads
would be happy to work with them, but would not have our choice of a
different type system preclude by a Rec.

• Prev by Date: RE: Namespace URI question
• Next by Date: RE: The privilege of XML parsing - Data types,binary XM
• Previous by thread: RE: The privilege of XML parsing - Data types,binary XM
• Next by thread: RE: The privilege of XML parsing - Data types,binary XM
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread