[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
When we define the types for XML, of course we don't have to make it a
superset of every possilbe data type in the world.
The predefined data types in XML Schema is a good basis.
And we just need to define the syntax for the atomic types. The complex
types can be mapped into element-attribute structure.
If the syntax in XML Schema is more or less sufficient to express all
the data values we want to exchange in XML, then we are not far off alreay.
Henry
Rich Salz wrote:
>>However, I don't think it is really that hard to extend XML further to
>>make it strong typed.
>>
>>
>
>Sure. 32 or 64 bit ints? 32 or 64 or Cray format floats? Corba, COM,
>Java, or C# object model? Multiple inheritance?
>
>
>
>>XML was initially designed without Namespace, and it is now patched with
>>namespace and everyone is happy to accept it.
>>
>>
>
>"everyone is happy to accept it"? You're new to this, aren't you.
>
> /r$
>
>
>
|
