[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 16:51:44 -0500
"Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com> wrote:
> bob@wyman.us (Bob Wyman) writes:
> >What is the proper forum in which to hash out the details of
> >such a type-rich interface for a "SAX 3"? Is it this group (xml-dev)?
> >Or somewhere else? Given that we can see that there are already two
> >commercial vendors working on SAX interfaces for the ASN.1 defined
> >types, and given that a such an interface will be needed/required by
> >*any* SAX interface to binary encodings, it probably makes sense for
> >us to define the interface we want as soon as possible so that we
> >don't end up stuck with the inevitable confusion that comes from
> >competing solutions.
>
> I think you'll likely find massive opposition to such a thing, both
> here and at saxproject.org.
Second the motion.
Note that one of the strongest existing criticisms of W3C XML Schema is
its [lack of a] type system. The bag-of-types approach, with nineteen
primitives (nine of them date-related, three numeric, two byte-stream,
two or three strings, boolean, and NOTATION) ought to horrify anyone
who's seen the systematic approach, including most of the ASN.1 folks.
Build *that* type system into something that tries to pass itself off as
SAX and the pushback will be enormous. Maybe the fundamental types in
ASN.1 could gain some sort of acceptance ... but the best bet then would
be to define them in RNG "type library" terms so that they can be used
independently of ASN.1 schemata.
Amy!
--
Amelia A. Lewis amyzing {at} talsever.com
The less I seek my source for some definitive, the closer I am to fine.
-- Indigo Girls
|
