[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Miles Sabin wrote:
> I simply can't make sense of the idea of typing without enforcement.
> Types are constraints ... and an unenforced constraint is no constraint
> at all. At best it's documentation.
I think this is where we differ. To me a type is just an assertion about data.
That it properly constrains/validates the data it is almost orthogonal.
You may wish to call it documentation. Documentation can be very useful, notably
when it's machine-readable.
In another post you state:
> Well, no. The basic lexical structure of an XML document instance isn't
> a type _in_ XML ... in a sense it's the type _of_ XML. I don't think
> that anyone's complaining that not all character sequences count as
> well-formed XML.
I think this is another point where understandings differ. Within the context of
XML, I would consider what you call "the type _of_ XML" degree zero of typedness
equivalent to the statement that "something is of type Thing", ie truistic
metadata, pretty much useless as such and that can be considered as untyped.
> It might not be very practical, but I've
> always been very fond of Cecil,
Thanks, I'm looking into it.
--
Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Research Engineer, Expway
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488
|
