[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Tue, 2002-05-14 at 12:00, Jonathan Robie wrote:
> I don't think either of us can simply demand that the other adopt our
> position, since neither of us really has the right personality to be
> bullied into submission. And I don't think these are axioms that must be
> adopted by all specs that are based on XML. I think that both typed access
> and untyped access are important for XMl.
Exactly! The problem IMO is not that W3C wants to define *a* schema
language and *a* query language, but that they want to define *the*
schema language and *the* query language.
As with programming languages, this long thread shows that there is no
universal solution and that diversity is needed.
For datatyping, there are many possibilities between static or dymanic
typing and between locating type information in models (schemas),
instance documents or applications (or transformations or queries).
What we need are specifications which acknowledge these possibilities
and are interoperable with other specifications which might come from
other organizations instead of a specification body acting as the
absolute owner of any XML specification and a semi god which can define
what is good and what is bad for us :-) ...
Eric
--
See you in Barcelona.
http://www.xmleurope.com/2002/schedule.asp
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
http://xsltunit.org http://4xt.org http://examplotron.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
