Lists Home |
Date Index |
> Jeni said:
> >Actually I think we can break this pattern down into two classes:
> > 1. grouping elements based on their *content* -- in other words, the
> > *type* hierarchy
> > 2. grouping elements based on their *context* -- in other words, the
> *substitution group* hierarchy
> > The current focus in XPath/XQuery is very much on 1 rather than 2.
> Yes, but that has been one of my major objections to W3C XML Schema
> all along. W3C only gave us #1 really and some very crude mechanisms
> for #2. The XPath/XQuery folk are heading in the same direction.
> I've tried to talk to some of the schema folks about the real need for
> "typing" of the second sort and been told (rather snootily) that those
> are "mere usage classes" not proper CS "types".
Whoever told you that did not deserve to pass CS. I do agree that one of the
most damaging problems with WXS types and the work that has cascaded from them
is the terribly narrow perception of what a type is. I've argues that here
> But I am an applications
> not a systems person, and in my world, usage grouping, whatever we call it
> is probably the most useful kind of grouping. I truly do not care that
> these "components" all have the same name, or the same model, I care how
> (and where, structurally or semantically) they can be used.
Agreed. Types are most generally a construct of usage patterns, not fiat.
Programmers who are so used to having to write
Seem to forget that very quickly.
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
Apache 2.0 API - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-apache/
Python&XML column: Tour of Python/XML - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/09/18/py.
Python/Web Services column: xmlrpclib - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/w