Lists Home |
Date Index |
> The intrusion of the W3C XML Schema type system into core XPath/XSLT
> struck me sufficiently to cause me to want to think about type systems
> and XML again. So here's *that* old permathread again ....
As usual, very sharply put. I agree with just about everything you say,
though I personally would prefer to make data types completely pluggable
rather thn even biling down to six. The only data type that should be baked
into any XML core technology is, as you put it, the ur-type "string".
And speaking of Emily Saliers, will the theme to XPath 2.0 be:
"I woke up with a headache like my head against a board, twice as cloudy as
I'd been the night before I went in seeking clarity"
To be sure, at this point strong+static types "rush right through me and I
start to drooooooown".
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
Gems From the [Python/XML] Archives - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/04/09/py-xm
Introducing N-Triples - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-thi
Use internal references in XML vocabularies - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerw
EXSLT by example - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/x-exslt.html
The worry about program wizards - http://www.adtmag.com/article.asp?id=7238
Use rdf:about and rdf:ID effectively in RDF/XML - http://www-106.ibm.com/develo