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] Still not the essence of XML (was Re: [xml-dev] S-expressi

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

At 07:40 PM 1/11/2003 +1100, Rick Jelliffe wrote:
>So their title and opening section are misleading or wrong still: not the 
>essence of XML but the essense of XML Schema. I guess by hanging around 
>XQuery people all the time, all the authors ever hear of XML is XML+WXS 
>conflated, but I wish they would spare the rest of us.* At least their 
>abstract is correct.  And the body of the paper? I found it very 
>interesting on a lot of fronts, and well worth a delve.
>* Perhaps it shows mindset at work that XQuery is "reforming" XML from a 
>relatively untyped format with strings and tokens suitable for 
>loosely-coupled systems which can be used with any datatyping 
>convention,  to a strongly typed format with a fixed number of primitive 
>built-in types suitable for tightly-coupled systems: I heard a member of 
>the XQuery WG say "without types you can't do anything!"

Members of the Query WG are all over the map on this, but you hardly need 
XML Schema for XQuery - for instance, only one of the Use Cases actually 
uses a schema, and that use case is specifically designed to use a schema. 
Another use case, Use Case R, would probably be improved by giving it a 
schema. Of course, XQuery exploits whatever type information is present.

I don't get the loosely-coupled vs. tightly coupled reference. Can you give 
me an example of a loosely coupled scenario that is harder to handle in 
XQuery than in, say, XSLT?



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

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