Lists Home |
Date Index |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Amelia A Lewis [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 8:58 PM
> To: Jason Diamond
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
> For any custom conversions, this may not be the case. A
> great deal depends, again, on whether the developers get to
> design the schema, based on the capabilities of the target
> language's type system, or the designers create the schema
> based on the problem domain's requirements.
> If the domain requires an integer in the range 1 to 50,000,
> what's the proper type?
> unsigned short? That works, but not in Java. Also, the
> actual value carried around needs the extra information that
> it's a constrained short, which cannot have the value 0 or
> values greater than 50,000. In Java, signed int, with
> constraints? But it's perfectly possible to define it as a
> range of -20,001 - 30,000, plus an offset of 20,000.
You keep going on and on about how difficult this is to implement in
Java yet Microsoft shipped this functionality in .NET a few months ago.
Given the similarities between C# + CLR and Java + JVM, I just don't see
how your arguments have any leg to stand on besides intense dislike of
W3C XML Schema (which is understandable *chuckle*) .
> > XSDL is hardly the best language for just validation. DTDs are fine
> > for that. RELAX NG is even better. Use the right tool for the right
> > job.
> Horsefeathers. Structural validation is only half of the
> issue. The point of describing typing as a specification of
> validation algorithms is that that's how you do it purely
> within XML. Anything else requires knowledge of the target
> language. Validation requires only knowledge of what the
> constraints are, for simple types, semi-structured types, and
> structured types. Restricting validation solely to the
> domain of structured types certainly does imply that one
> doesn't need XSDL, or typing of simple types at all.
Exactly, W3C XML Schema is probably not the best language for describing
structural validation for XML content. However it does a better job than
any other XML schema language I've seen when it comes to specifying a
mechanism for mapping XML to relational or object oriented data, bar
Your vociferous objections run counter to my experiences and those of
thousands of developers who are using typed datasets, XML serialization
and SOAP today (not tomorrow, not Real Soon Now but today) on the .NET
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