Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Thu, 2002-05-09 at 15:02, email@example.com wrote:
> In talking about "more complex types" there are two different
> issues that might get confused.
> 1) binary datatypes
> 2) structures composed of elements and attributes
> I agree that all this business about different types of
> binary datatypes does not have much to do with XML.
That's good, though "binary datatypes" - do you mean the kinds of types
defined in W3C XML Schema: Datatypes, or just things like base64,
hexBinary? (I guess there's a continuum.)
> But on the other hand, XML types composed of elements and
> attributes are perfectly good XML, for example:
Sure - I don't have any problem with what you demonstrated here. That's
completely within the realm of markup->type I'm describing for XML.
> I do agree that an inordinate focus on binary datatypes is
> not something that XML ought concern itself with.
> On the
> other hand, I also think that there are excellent reasons
> to work with "native XML" types i.e. element and attribute
> based structures (a.k.a. "structured datatypes")
Sure. That's exactly what XML (with or without a PSVI) is good at.
> I also can't say that I would bet the farm on the "PSVI"
> and its details ... it might be a bit more complicated than
> it needs to be, on the other hand I haven't spent much
> time trying to understand the nitty gritty details of how
> it is supposed to work. That is to say, I think "types" in
> general are useful, aside from the specific details of how
> XSDL and the PSVI are specified. Let's not throw out the
> baby with the bathwater. On the other hand, let's be sure
> to use clean bathwater :-)
I don't think we're disagreeing here. I suspect I'm mostly asking for a
different flow of bathwater for the PSVI baby in order that the PSVI
baby and the XML baby are happier - and maybe they can even share some
toys. (Sorry to push the metaphor.)
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!