Lists Home |
Date Index |
At 11:46 AM 5/7/2002 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>But Simon asks a pertinent point: who bears the costs
>for unused features? The developer? The framework
>developer? This becomes a nasty problem for buying
>and using tools.
We need to start with a list of which features will be unused, and what
their costs are. I like use cases as a way of seeing which features will be
I agree with those who have said that many XML Schema datatypes are not
likely to be used. This does add to complexity. I wish we could pare these
down, but I don't see how, now that XML Schema is a rec. And some of us
tried, during the development of XML Schema, to pare down on the number of
datatypes, but we did not prevail. The datatypes of XML Schema bloat our
Functions and Operators document - but they do so by adding functions that
are at least very easy to implement, if tedious.l So I understand on a
fairly concrete level what people are talking about here, I just don't know
anything useful we can do about it.
In general, I suspect that a query language that is integrated with the
type system of XML Schema is a significant simplification for the user, not
a complication, because it allows the XML to be processed directly, and
does not require mapping to other type systems before processing can occur.
The user does not have to figure out how dates should be sorted or how they
map to a particular implementation's date type, the user simply does
queries on dates, and they act like the user expects them to.