[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- To: "Mike Champion" <mc@xegesis.org>,<xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Stupid Question (was RE: [xml-dev] XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
- From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 10:52:51 -0800
- Thread-index: AcHEc1CI0Tk7IhTaQ7+UgZQD8+6gSAAAz0iw
- Thread-topic: [xml-dev] Stupid Question (was RE: [xml-dev] XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@xegesis.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 10:26 AM
> To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: [xml-dev] Stupid Question (was RE: [xml-dev] XML
> doesn't deserve its "X".)
>
>
> Why not just put the type information inline and
> make XML more "self-describing" (please don't
> shoot me ...)
> <myData>
> <foo my:type="Int">0xffffffff</foo>
> <bar my:type="String">Someday/bar>
> <baz my:type="Date">20371031</baz>
> </myData>
>
>
By the way you can do this in XML, it's called xsi:type[0] but you still
need a schema to obtain the actual declarations/definitions of the types
in question.
[0] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#xsi_type
--
THINGS TO DO IF I BECOME AN EVIL OVERLORD #51
If one of my dungeon guards begins expressing concern over the
conditions
in the beautiful princess' cell, I will immediately transfer him to a
less
people-oriented position.
|