[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 10:38 AM 5/7/2002 -0400, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
>At 3:26 PM +0200 5/7/02, Matthew Gertner wrote:
>>Admittedly I am just restating the problem, but I am curious to know why you
>>are so convinced that the data in XML documents are strings that can be
>>translated into other data types when necessary,
>
>Because an XML document is defined as a finite sequences of characters.
Actually, XML Schema defines value spaces for the various types, and many
people are doing XML views of persistent data.
>> and not dates, number, etc.
>>that are serialized as strings when an XML document is instantiated.
>
>In this case, you have some other data that is not an XML document. This
>data is then translated into strings which are stored in an XML document.
>However, not all XML documents are created this way. A general purpose
>technology like XSLT/XPath that has to be defined for all XML documents
>cannot rely on characteristics that apply to only some XML documents; e.g.
>that they were created by converting numbers into strings.
I suspect much of this argument is between people who merely use XML as a
transport and serialization technology, and those who actually do
processing of XML that involves some knowledge of the types involved.
Jonathan
|
