Re: [xml-dev] Multiple instances of an attribute Re: [xml-dev]Towards XM

[Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>]

Was that a typo 'xml:json' rather than 'xsd:json'? Or a Freudian slip?

I was also thinking maybe some xml:xxx features added to XML by the XML WG
(rather than the XML Schema WG) might expand attribute functionality in a
way which doesn't require a schema (like JSON doesn't require a schema). Is
this in line with Liam's mention of a possible xml:attribute? I'm
thinking along the
lines xml:sequence and xml:list (unordered) too as refinements perhaps of an
xml:attribute, or have I got the wrong end of the stick? I'm thinking a new XML
file should allow more description within the file itself rather than needing a
schema and then let a schema be an external combination of additional model
documentation/specification and validation tool (along with others like test
assertions, plain old code, etc) kept away from the XML itself.

----
Stephen D Green



On 10 December 2010 09:15, Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A better solution is to use xsd:list datatype :
>> <foo value="bar spam"/>
>> but that is not known.
>
> reminds me - I was thinking the WG could add an xml:json datatype
> which might solve this (but I would hope there would be a better
> way to allow JSON-like functionality in an attribute).
>
> ----
> Stephen D Green
>
>
>
> On 10 December 2010 09:03, nicolas debeissat <ndebeiss@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The treatment of lists is indeed a big issue in XML, misunderstood by lots
>> of people.
>> Some of them systematically wrap the list into a markup list :
>> <foo>
>> <valuelist>
>>     <value>123</value>
>>     <value>456</value>
>> </valuelist>
>> </foo>
>>
>> which is incredibly verbose compared to the JSON { "foo": ["bar", "spam"] }
>> A better solution is to use xsd:list datatype :
>> <foo value="bar spam"/>
>> but that is not known. I have seen a REST javadoc generator which uses
>> xsd:list for a list of markups...
>> There are still critical Axis bugs opened on the serialization of String[]
>> values, see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AXIS-2250
>> Even without a schema you can get that value "bar spam" and split it, that
>> is not XML philosophy, but...
>> I agree it would be better not to have to define a schema in order to get
>> that list.
>>
>> Regards
>> Nicolas Debeissat
>>
>> 2010/12/9 Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Alternatively, why not improve the way XML defines attribute
>>> values to include an array of values for the same attribute with
>>> various kinds of array, like JSON; arrays, lists without sequence,
>>> sequences and vectors - and do so without the need for a
>>> schema?
>>>
>>> ----
>>> Stephen D Green
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9 December 2010 15:18, Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> The second is perhaps equivalent to  the XML
>>> >> <foo>
>>> >>  <value>bar</value>
>>> >>  <value>spam</value>
>>> >> </foo>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > So if you can write
>>> >
>>> > <foo>
>>> >  <value>bar</value>
>>> >  <value>spam</value>
>>> > </foo>
>>> >
>>> > in XML, why not also allow
>>> >
>>> > <foo value="bar" value="spam"/>
>>> >
>>> > ?
>>> > It is more succinct, which seems to be one of the JSON selling points.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> or even if you use XSD schema with the appropriate type
>>> >> <foo>bar spam</foo>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > but this requires a schema, which is another of JSON's selling points:
>>> > It doesn't.
>>> >
>>> > ----
>>> > Stephen D Green
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 9 December 2010 15:12, David Lee <dlee@calldei.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> =============='
>>> >>> { "foo" : "bar" , "foo" : "spam" }
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Is legal JSON ?
>>> >>
>>> >> But the array
>>> >>
>>> >> { "foo": ["bar", "spam"] }
>>> >>
>>> >> amounts to the same thing doesn't it?
>>> >> ----
>>> >> Stephen D Green
>>> >> ============================
>>> >>
>>> >> Not in my mind.  They end up as different internal objects.
>>> >>
>>> >> The first is an object with 2 named fields, the second is an object
>>> >> with one
>>> >> named field which is an array of 2 unnamed strings.
>>> >> Completely different data, both in syntax and in the internal
>>> >> JavaScript
>>> >> object form.
>>> >> You would access them differently.  They are not equivalent.
>>> >>
>>> >> The second is perhaps equivalent to  the XML
>>> >> <foo>
>>> >>  <value>bar</value>
>>> >>  <value>spam</value>
>>> >> </foo>
>>> >>
>>> >> or even if you use XSD schema with the appropriate type
>>> >> <foo>bar spam</foo>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>> XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
>>> to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
>>> spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.
>>>
>>> [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
>>> Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org
>>> subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@lists.xml.org
>>> List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>>> List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
>>>
>>
>>
>