[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Chiusano Joseph wrote:
>
> I agree that by its nature, XML does not (and was never meant to)
> capture rich semantics and meaning. But I do not agree that XML is
> *completely* devoid of semantics.
>
> Consider the following XML schema snippet:
>
> <xsd:element name="ApplicantEstimatedAmount" type="xsd:decimal"/>
> <xsd:annotation>
> <xsd:documentation>This is the amount that the Applicant has
> requested for...[etc.]</xsd:documentation>
> </xsd:annotation>
>
In this case, per the XML Schema specification (i.e. not per XML 1.0
itself), the following XML snippet:
<ApplicationEstimatedAmount>12.30</ApplicationEstimatedAmount>
is to be processed as equivalent to the following XML snippet:
<ApplicationEstimatedAmount>12.30000000000000</ApplicationEstimatedAmount>
_per the XML Schema specification_
XML Schema thus provides a form of semantics to the XML document, i.e. that
such element content is to be treated as a decimal number. Now that isn't an
all encompassing semantics for the document, but it is not intended to,
rather to add basic type information to element or attribute content. This
states that applications _which conform to this semantics_, are not licensed
to treat the content as a number other than _12.3_. It doesn't state what
units, for example, the number is intended to represent, e.g. 12.3 froggets,
or 12.30 euros.
Jonathan
|
