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 ]

At 10:42 AM 12/5/2002 -0700, Uche Ogbuji wrote:

>Two things:
>1) From my last reading of XPath 2.0, schema "import" was not optional if the
>document had a PSVI.  If this has changed, this is a big step forward.

It has always been optional, whether or not the document has been schema 
validated. (Of course, XQuery operates on the Data Model, not the PSVI).

>2) Even if schema import is optional, it is all or nothing.  More likely, I
>want to use type information in, say, one template, and not across the board
>for all values.

This has never been true - XQuery has always allowed you to import just the 
schemas for which you want type information.

 > > Building data types into the schema doesn't seem harmful. That's the
> > point of a schema, is it not?
>My point is that it ensures tight coupling.

I can do queries on data without importing the schemas into a query, and 
the built-in data types in instances are available whether or not I import 
schemas into a query.

It would be very helpful for me if you could explain just exactly what you 
mean by tight coupling.

> > | 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.
>I didn't say building it into a particular stylesheet or query is harmful.  I
>said that if the data typing info in the PSVI is used at the basic XPath
>processing info, that this is harmful, except in skilful hands.

Can you give me some examples of what you fear?

> > | * 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?
>Bound to PSVI, to be specific.  And I also mean that there hasn't been enough
>work in defining profiles that define generic processing (including
>constraints processing) for those who don't want static typing.

Static typing is optional. Schema import is optional. Is this what you are 
asking for?



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

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