[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: atoms, molecules
- From: Jonathan Borden <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com, "Simon St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 18:08:04 -0400
Stuart Naylor wrote:
> I find it a little strange the idea of representing unicode translations
> binary data types.
And all this time I'd thought that binary datatypes were merely grafted on
top of the fundamental XML unicode text as a convenience for CPUs that
prefer to deal with particularly structured binary bits.
> If a service or application is going to use a schema then it probaly has
> logic to deal with the underlying data.
> I like things simple like myself and with something as fundemental as a
> precision number or integer do I not already have my schema embeded
> with the decimal point.
But realize that the _underlying data_ is text and the fundamental basis of
XML is unicode. I see being able to manipulate elements as patterns of text
a _good thing_. Suppose we find out tomorrow that the fundamental unit of
some new amazingly powerful optical processor is 17.3 bit words. XML and XML
data will be fine.