[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Henry Luo wrote:
> 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.
Actually XML Schema is a good example of just how tough this is to do,
and get agreement on. In point of fact, XML Schema didn't get it right.
Just ask the XQuery folks who had to struggle with schema types and
reinvent several of the types anyway.
> 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.
But it clearly isn't. There are many restrictions one might wish to
place on an XML document, both for simple and complex types, that the
W3C XML Schema Language is incapable of expressing. There are many types
one might wish to define that W3C schemas can't define.
--
Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@metalab.unc.edu
XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published!
http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian3/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596007647/cafeaulaitA/ref=nosim
|
