[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 07:27 AM 6/10/2003 +1200, Berend de Boer wrote:
> >>>>> "Jonathan" == Jonathan Robie
> <jonathan.robie@datadirect-technologies.com> writes:
>
> Jonathan> 3. The type hierarchies are not simple - the
> Jonathan> distinct hierarchies for complex and simple types and
> Jonathan> the distinction between elements and complex types
> Jonathan> result in a more cluttered type system than that found
> Jonathan> in most OO or relational systems. This is not the kind
> Jonathan> of type lattice that a good datahead would normally
> Jonathan> design.
>
>But it is the type part that is adopted by most other XML based
>languages like Relax NG and XForms. Can't be too bad :-)
Well, only the simple types are being incorporated into the other schema
languages - and I believe that the extensible type system of the simple
types is a very good thing. I'm not wild about all the Australian types
(gDay and the other date/time types), and I wish integer were a primitive
type rather than something derived from decimal by restriction, but the
framework for constructing simple types is very elegant, I think.
The type system as a whole, when you add in the complex types and
substitution groups and all ... well, I agree, it's not too bad, it's
workable but overly complex.
Jonathan
|
