OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] bohemians, gentry

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

So your only complaint is that you believe that an XML document with a provided schema will be forced to be typed? Well, this doesn't jibe with anything I've seen in any of the working drafts so could you please provide a link or excerpt of the  relevant text of a W3C document?
Nothing stops you from having 
and treating it as a string or as a number if you so care in XQuery/XPath 2.0/XSLT 2.0 as long as you don't associate a type with the value. You only seem to be arguing about what you believe some implementations will do. 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: David Carlisle [mailto:davidc@nag.co.uk] 
	Sent: Thu 12/5/2002 7:55 AM 
	To: Dare Obasanjo 
	Cc: jonathan.Robie@datadirect-technologies.com; xml-dev@lists.xml.org 
	Subject: Re: [xml-dev] bohemians, gentry

	  The only time your statement is true is if <Weight> typed as a schema
	  type and thus was converted from a PSVI to the XQuery data model. 
	Yes. Exactly.
	  In this case since the PSVI doesn't mandate retaining comments
	I can live (just about) with comments going. Although in practice
	All XPath1 implementations seem to keep them even though they spec
	doesn't insist on that. I don't believe that the character data should
	be lost though.
	> it may be costly for implementations to store both the typed value
	> and the untyped node structure
	If its costly to keep both, and you want to call yourself an XML
	application rather than a database of typed data, then it's clear whuch
	one should be kept. I don't have anything against databases, but If
	Xpath is corrupted to work with those, what are we going to use for
	documents, go back to dsssl?
	  I don't see how different this is from the XPath 1.0 query
	  giving me
	It's _completely_ and utterly different and goes to the heart of the
	In a traditional document oriented view of XML I can have
	 <A>012</A> (forget comments for now) and choose _at processing time_
	how I want to view the data. I can within the same expression do
	test=="(A = 12 ) and string-length(A)=2"
	and use it both as a string and a number (or any other type that seems
	useful at the time)
	In the new order. typing is, or may be, irretrievably enforced by the
	document author supplying a schema, which instead of doing its rightful
	job of ensuring that the author followed the grammar of the language
	being used, is instead being used to impose a typed view on all subsequent
	> So really what has changed? If you want to deal with untyped data then
	> don't use schema types. You can't have your cake and eat it too. 
	If the XML file is going to be used as input to a numerical process
	it is perfectly reasonable for it to be associated with a schema
	that ensures that the document has been created with data that will
	parse as numerical data. But one of the main reasons for chosing XML as
	opposed to some binary format is to be able to be free to do other kinds
	of processing _on the same file_.
	The "typed value" aproach to XML parsing severely limits this freedom of
	processing options.  Jonathan's assertion that if you don't import
	schemas into your query everything works as before is simply not
	true. Xpath2/Xquery allow documents to be corrupted at parse time in
	ways that can't be controlled from the query.
	This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
	delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
	information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
	Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS