[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> I've been thinking about this for most of the day and don't think I see much
> wrong with it. So on the one hand we've lost the ability to infer type
> information given the name of an element if the document uses schemas but on
> the other hand have gained a rich type system. In my book that's a rather
> fair exchange.
I would rather say that the main "gain" is additional complexity.
> This seems to only be an issue if applications try to ignore schema
> information and assume what the type information for an element is, and we
> all know that assumping is rarely a good idea.
Why? Most if not all the applications have been relying on element types
and namespaces to identify the elements and have done so since the
creation of XML 1.0 (and probably before). Why is this wrong to call
"pub:isbn" "pub:isbn" instead of "foo"?
Eric
--
See you in Orlando for XML 2001.
http://www.xmlconference.net/xmlusa/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
http://xsltunit.org http://4xt.org http://examplotron.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
