[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Amelia A Lewis [mailto:amyzing@talsever.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 7:35 PM
> To: Aaron Skonnard
> Cc: 'Tim Bray'; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
>
> So I'd suggest that XSDL's attempt to produce a universal
> system isn't a success, and that the first thing to begin
> with is to define the minimal role of typing in XML. Perhaps
> it's possible to move conversion from the application into
> XML (although I still don't quite understand how one is going
> to map, for instance, signedInt into perl or python without
> writing a specialized constraint handler of some sort, which
> effectively puts it back into the application), but I don't
> think that this should be the focus of simple type
> definitions. If it's supposed to be, then the type
> definition probably ought to include the target language or
> languages. And in any event, validation of primitive types
> is the first step to actually doing the conversions, and
> specifies the *XML content*, rather than per-language conversion APIs.
Your experiences do not mirror those of most people I know. XSD has been
a boon to creating mechanisms for transparently serializing objects into
XML and back. .NET users utilize it all the time and the only complaints
I have seen are that the functionality we provide is not fully featured
enough.
--
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
The shortest distance between two points is under repair.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
|
