[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
/ Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com> was heard to say:
[...]
|> Or have I missed the point?
|
| I think you may have missed the point, because as far as I see it, you're
| using data types in a very modular fashion: i.e. at the precise point in
| processing where it is immediately useful.
|
| I think that no one objects to such use of data types.
Who or what is preventing you from using them that way? (I'm really
not trying to be argumentative, I think I'm a bohemian myself, and I
sometimes think the gentry go a little bit off the rails, but I don't
lose sleep over it because I don't see how I'm being threatened. As I
said before, maybe I'm insufficiently paranoid.)
| The problem I bring up is that in their very tight coupling to text-based XML
| processing specs, that WXSDT end up pretty much imposing implicit data typing
| even when it is not needed, and when it can hamper the processing.
Where is the tight coupling? Schema import into a stylesheet or XML
Query will bind them together, but I think that's an instance of
modular use. That doesn't bind my documents to any particular schema
(except perhaps when I run a particular query, naturally).
| In order
| to use these new data typing "wizards" (as Jonathan call them, seemingly
| deadpan), you have to build these data types into the schema or the instance,
Building data types into the schema doesn't seem harmful. That's the
point of a schema, is it not?
I'm not sure what you mean by building the data types into the
instance. If you mean using xsi:type, then I agree completely that
it's brittle. And wrong. And I'll quickly discard any tool that does
it.
| which means they now affect all XPath, XSLT and XQuery operations on them.
| This, I think is where the brittleness emerges.
Sometimes I write stylesheets that are entirely data type agnostic,
but not really very often. I don't see how building data typing into a
particular stylesheet or query is harmful.
| * The lack of modularity in W3C efforts to incorporate data typing into XML
| technologies
Do you mean because they're tied more-or-less exclusively to WXS? Or
do you mean something else?
| In other words, to return to trope: I dislike the fact that things are
| permanently stamped with their class for all their lifetime, and that their
| class is considered an intrinsic part of their being. That's so, like, fuedal.
What is "all their lifetime"? If I drag a stream of bits off my disk,
subject it to schema validation, and build, for example, an XPath2
Data Model instance out of it, those types will be stamped on the data
model. But the chances are pretty good that I'm going to use that data
model to do some particular process on the document and then throw it
away.
Some people are going to build systems that store that data model
instance, but I'm not going to be forced to use those systems. And you
know, those systems may solve important problems. Not problems that I
care about, perhaps, but one man's important is another man's
irrelevant, I suppose.
Be seeing you,
norm
- --
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM | So, are you working on finding that bug now,
XML Standards Architect | or are you leaving it until later? Yes.
Web Tech. and Standards |
Sun Microsystems, Inc. |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iD8DBQE972EXOyltUcwYWjsRAomVAKCp/d1Ln/2L+Mp/BqTwwLz2H1EHLACePQRo
kVF3vFnH9+Eb40B95FPzdAw=
=nvlP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
