[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Datatypes vs anarchy (was Re: Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XMLHack Article wrt W3C XML Schema)
- From: "David E. Cleary" <email@example.com>
- To: Michael Champion <firstname.lastname@example.org>,xml-dev <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:04:09 -0500
> context, heuristics, etc. That's a problem for automated tools and the
> semantic web, but not too severe a problem for human programmers and
Like in Florida<G>.
> Likewise with XML Schemas. In my mind, they are the $400/hr
> lawyers of the
> XML world ... when you need them, you need them badly, but most
> people hope
> to get through their daily lives without having to deal with these @#$%s!
If anyone is saying using Schemas is mandatory, they are incorrect. And
API's like DOM and XPath that allow access to the PSVI will not fail against
instances that do not have schemas.
> So the issue here is not whether there SHOULD be XML data typing
> facilities -- we clearly need more than XML 1.0 offers for a lot of cases.
> The issue is whether all those who can get by with informal agreements,
> human-written code, etc. MUST have to deal with schemas and
If you are writing a DOM level 3 parser, then you must worry about this
stuff. Otherwise, stick to level 2. If you are a consumer of XML and do not
care about schemas, don't use them, just like people who do not care about
DTDs do not use them.
> critics of the W3C are simply arguing that types should be
> LAYERED ON rather
> than ENTANGLED IN to XML.
How are they entangled in XML? From my vantage point, they are layered. You
have well formed, valid, and schema valid. You have rich type information or
no type information. If DOM and XPath should not support access to the PSVI,
should we have hundreds of vendor specific APIs? Do any of these schema
aware APIs that are being developed break when you do not have a schema? I
don't think so.