Lists Home |
Date Index |
Jonathan Robie scripsit:
> > Where there is a contract in the form of a DTD or other schema,
> > it is binding only upon the data creator who chooses to identify
> > and then to abide by it. From the data recipient's point of view,
> > that contract is no more than the data creator's undertaking to present
> > particular classes of data in a particular consistent form.
> I'm not sure that I understand. If a data creator and a data recipient
> agree to use a given schema, then the data recipient may reject any data
> that does not validate according to the schema, on the grounds that it does
> not conform to the agreement.
There need be no agreement between recipient and creator. The creator may
simply announce that his documents conform to a certain schema. At best,
it is the creator who is bound thereby: the recipient does not have to
do anything in particular with a given document whether valid or not.
The case is otherwise, of course, if the recipient is a server: servers have
their own contracts about what they will do with incoming documents. But if
the recipient is basically a listener, then he is not bound.
> Obviously, once a program gets ahold of data, it can do whatever it wants
> with that data. Sometimes that may involve casting. I am not sure what
> issues you are concerned about here.
AFAIU he wants to keep the freedom to manipulate incoming data at the syntax
level, and not be bound by a "universal" data-binding engine that disappears
the XML in favor of some specific instantiation of it.
I think his concerns are overblown, but not unreasonable in principle.
Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis vom dies! || John Cowan <email@example.com>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies. -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)