Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Still not the essence of XML (was Re: S-expressi
 At 07:40 PM 1/11/2003 +1100, Rick Jelliffe wrote: >So their title and opening section are misleading or wrong still: not the >essence of XML but the essense of XML Schema. I guess by hanging around >XQuery people all the time, all the authors ever hear of XML is XML+WXS >conflated, but I wish they would spare the rest of us.* At least their >abstract is correct. And the body of the paper? I found it very >interesting on a lot of fronts, and well worth a delve. > >* Perhaps it shows mindset at work that XQuery is "reforming" XML from a >relatively untyped format with strings and tokens suitable for >loosely-coupled systems which can be used with any datatyping >convention, to a strongly typed format with a fixed number of primitive >built-in types suitable for tightly-coupled systems: I heard a member of >the XQuery WG say "without types you can't do anything!" Members of the Query WG are all over the map on this, but you hardly need XML Schema for XQuery - for instance, only one of the Use Cases actually uses a schema, and that use case is specifically designed to use a schema. Another use case, Use Case R, would probably be improved by giving it a schema. Of course, XQuery exploits whatever type information is present. I don't get the loosely-coupled vs. tightly coupled reference. Can you give me an example of a loosely coupled scenario that is harder to handle in XQuery than in, say, XSLT? Jonathan 
|
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
|
|||||||||
