Lists Home |
Date Index |
> On Thursday 05 December 2002 15:49, Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> > Alaric B. Snell:
> > > That's a big part of what typing can be for XML. Rather than a wooly
> > > description that this element contains a date (the kind of typing that
> > > happens in so-called "untyped" XML), instead referencing a formally
> > > defined type.
> > There is no reason that the bludgeon of type needs to be used to enforce
> > lexical constraints. If lexical constraints are what you need, it's better
> > to just use, well, lexical constraints.
> Lexical constraint is one form/aspect of typing things that are represented
> lexically... that's all the typing in XSD really does, although it does make
> the type information available for other uses too.
You're wrong. XSD defines extensive value space parameters. Often by
external reference, but to say that WXSDT is purely lexical is just ludicrous.
> > > When the spec says that xs:decimal has 'arbitrary' precision it does not
> > > (well, from other use of the same term in other contexts, *should* not)
> > > mean:
> > >
> > > 1) That implementations can arbitrarily drop precision
> > Umm. It doesn't have to say this. This is the simple reality. If
> > representing a particular decimal requires more resources than my machine
> > has available, something has to give.
> An arbitrary precision library faced with a number too large to represent in
> memory ought to throw out of memory exceptions rather than dropping digits...
> Ok, from your apparent ignorance of these things, I take it you've never
> really worked with real implementations of arbitrary precision numbers (which
> have been around since the LISP days, and Java currently has one in the
> standard libraries) so please stop making absolute statements about them that
> aren't true!
What was your charming apothegm?
"Nya nya nya! Well *my* dad's superman!"
Hmm. Seems a bit weak. I can come up with much snappier from my playground
> > > 2) That implementations have to allocate all available memory for the
> > > buffer
> > I didn't say they had to. I was using a bit of reductio to hack at
> > Jonathan's point that knowing in advance that they can be "arbitrary" is of
> > any use.
> They are as arbitrary as the length of CDATA in elements in XML. I'd hate to
> use any XML processing software you have written if you take 'arbitrary' to
> mean 'If it is too big to fit into memory I can just drop characters because
> the length is ARBITRARY' :-)
"They are as arbitrary as the length of CDATA in elements in XML".
Exactly. If you were following the argument, you'd see that this is exactly
the point. That they guarantee nothing, contrary to Jonathan's claims.
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
Tour of 4Suite - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/10/16/py-xml.html
Proper XML Output in Python - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/11/13/py-xml.html
RSS for Python - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-p
Debug XSLT on the fly - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-deb