[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 12:45 PM 12/4/2002 -0500, W. E. Perry wrote:
>"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
>
> > Uche Ogbuji has a thoughtful (and thought-provoking) piece at:
> > http://www.adtmag.com/article.asp?id=6965
>
>AOL to this, Uche.
>
>I would actually go beyond your point:
>
>"Certainly, if you want your data to outlast your code, and to be more
>portable to unforeseen, future uses, you would do well to lower your own
>level of class consciousness. Strong data typing in XML tends to pigeonhole
>data to specific tools, environments and situations. This often raises the
>total cost of managing that data."
>
>It is not just over time, but right now, between utterly dissimilar systems
>whose only nexus is the internetwork, that communication is possible only by
>instantiating a common syntax into locally idiosyncratic semantics at each
>end of the conversation.
I still don't understand this point. Could someone please illustrate with
an example that uses several kinds of software processing data that uses
datatypes, and showing how the presence of datatypes in that data prevents
it from being used except in "specific tools, environments, and situations"?
Please be as concrete as possible.
Jonathan
|
