Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: "Joe English" <email@example.com>,<firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Stupid Question (was RE: [xml-dev] XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
- From: "Dare Obasanjo" <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 15:48:32 -0800
- Thread-index: AcHEmO/rR8FxNwIxQL2siTy2s13xMAABuf5Q
- Thread-topic: [xml-dev] Stupid Question (was RE: [xml-dev] XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe English [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 2:55 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Stupid Question (was RE: [xml-dev] XML
> doesn't deserve its "X".)
> I'm having a hard time envisioning a scenario where having
> 'xsi:type' would be useful to an application.
> Suppose I'm a program. If you hand me a piece of data and
> tell me that it's an Integer, I still won't know what to
> do with it. Now I might be able to make some sense out
> of a QUANTITY attribute on a LINEITEM element inside a
> PURCHASEORDER, but in that case I'm already expecting it to
> be an Integer.
There is no rule that states that xsi:type should only describe
simpleTypes. Your post is basically stating
I'm having a hard time envisioning a scenario where having
XML schema type information for an instance document would
be useful to an application.
Which just means that the kind of problems you have to solve are
different from those that those of us that are interested in strongly
typed data have to solve.
THINGS TO DO IF I BECOME AN EVIL OVERLORD #230
I will not procrastinate regarding any ritual granting immortality.