Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] XML-with-datatypes (was....)
 This is, I guess, the "document-oriented culture", which has its peculiar needs, as you describe. But there is also the data-oriented culture, with its own peculiar needs. All what I was hypothesizing, was that the needs of both could be covered by single syntax and a single data model, without inconveniencing either of the cultures. [Len: I am talking about possibilities of designing the thing anew, however futile that could be. This wouldn't be XML, everyone knows well that XML is cast in stone, to last for millenia ;-) ] [Btw, for my education: what does "GI" stand for?] VG On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, W. E. Perry wrote: > This is IMHO the fundamental misunderstanding of markup which brings us once > again to the ur-permathread of XML-DEV. In markup the GI asserts a type, or > general case, or Platonic Form, and asserts as well the connection of that type > to the instance value which it marks up. What the semantics, or 'meaning' of > that type might be requires that the marked-up instance be processed so as to > elaborate a particular meaning appropriate to that instance in the context of > that markup as handled by that process on that occasion for a particular > audience. There is no requirement that any reader of a marked-up instance > process that instance in the same way as the author of that instance might. > Indeed, the fundamental extensibility of XML lies not merely in the privilege of > an author to assert a novel GI, or to assert a GI in a novel connection to a > particular instance, but in the equal privilege of every audience to that > instance to process it in an idiosyncratic manner and thereby to elaborate from > it idiosyncratic semantics. > > Respectfully, > > Walter Perry > > > Vladimir Gapeyev wrote: > >> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Elliotte Harold wrote: >> >>> "XML is only semi-structured with no explicit type information." is a >>> feature, not a bug. Removing it makes the data less useful, and the format >>> fairly uninteresting. XML would not be where it is today if it featured >>> strong data typing. >> >> Why wouldn't it? In a sensibly well-designed XML-with-data-types, the >> untyped (textual, PCDATA) values would be just one of the datatypes. So, >> any document in XML-as-we-know-it would be a well-formed document in >> XML-with-datatypes. Anyone not interested in types is free to ignore >> them. (Maybe it is even still possible to define XML-with-datatypes as >> an extension of XML 1.0, maintaining backward compatibility?) >> >> VG > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an > initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> > > The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription > manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php> > 
|
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
|
|||||||||
