Re: Enlightenment via avoiding the T-word

[Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@rpbourret.com>]

Nicolas LEHUEN wrote:
> 
> Oh, I now understand the reason why some people want unique element names :
> you can associate elements to types without validating, just by looking up
> in a type table.

Validation and unique element names are not tied together here. In fact,
validation has nothing to do with it. The question of whether element
names are unique or not is simply one of how complex/context-dependent
your type lookup code is.

> Then what we would get should not be called a PSVI (Post
> Schema Validation Infoset) but a thing like TI (Typed Infoset).

Yes.

> 
> But anyway, I wonder what those people are going to do with this information
> thereafter, because you're trusting that your document follows a particular
> schema, and don't have any proof of it. This *is not* robust.

In a closed, trusted system, some people would consider it robust.
Others would not. It's a religious argument I'd rather not get into. (In
an open or untrusted system, it is definitely not robust.)

> Plus, I'd be
> very interested in seeing applications that process PSVIs or TIs in a
> context-insensitive way. What kind of applications could it be ? Do you have
> examples in mind ?

Mostly simple type-processing stuff. For example, I could convert all
dates and real numbers to a specific format before storing them in a
database, so a type-unaware query language could be used against them.
Or I could write standard routines to process given types as part of a
data binding application. It's all really just plumbing that fits
beneath the context-sensitive stuff.

-- 
Ronald Bourret
XML, Databases, and Schemas
http://www.rpbourret.com
Speaker, Geek Cruises' XML Excursion '02