Lists Home |
Date Index |
firstname.lastname@example.org (Alaric B Snell) writes:
Your experience and mine appear to have nothing in common.
To target one critical sentence:
>Type-aware interpretation of XML is a fact of life as soon as you start
>passing anything other than human-language text in XML.
XML doesn't need types. It has element and attribute names. They're
labels, not types. If you want to tell me something's typed, good for
you. I won't care.
I don't want the clutter that comes from such caring imposed on my APIs,
I don't want it presented as a best practice, and I'll fight hard
against such nonsense being presented as "non-polluting".
Even the case you make, less polluting than namespaces is hardly a clean
bill of health, and I don't believe that's true in any case.
I'll have types internally, sure. My types. That's all I need or want,
and most programmers regard their own types with a little more fondness
than generic systems of types others expect them to support. There's no
need for "facts of life" that aren't factual.
I'm thoroughly disappointed that this week's seemingly positive
developments have led us back to this line of junk. Maybe it would be
better for ASN.1 to stay in its corner - I'd hoped it might take some
burdens off of XML, but this latest conversation seems bent on driving
that burden deeper into XML processing.