[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Some random noise on rational type systems for XML
At 04:04 PM 5/11/2003 +1000, Rick Jelliffe wrote: >If you make your ur-type "string", doesn't that mean that you are throwing >out the value-space/lexical-space distinction? How is a integer value >a subtype of a string? I see the lexical space issues as properly the domain of XML, while the value-space issues belong to consumers of XML - much as XML 1.0 processors/parsers sort out the lexically-specified parts in a document, while the application has responsibility for sorting out what those things might mean. An integer value would not be a subtype of a string. Instead, it would be an interpretation of a given lexical representation in a given context. (Regular fragmentations[1] was designed along these lines.) Maybe this is just later binding, but it seems to me to give text-oriented folks what they need while letting data-heads do their thing in a _separate_ space. Unfortunately, while W3C XML Schema recognizes this distinction, its types still operate on both sides. [1] - http://simonstl.com/projects/fragment/
|
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
|