RE: [xml-dev] "Introducing MicroXML, Part 1: Explore the basicprinciples

[David Lee <dlee@calldei.com>]

> John Sayeth
> 
> Well, in MicroLark you can implement an ElementFactory and pass it to the
> parser, and the parser will use the factory to create element objects
> (which must be instances of a subclass of Element).  The factory gets
> access to the new element's name and the current element stack including
> attributes.  This is somewhat richer than XML Schema, which requires
> that the  of an element be determinable using the new element's name
> and the names of the elements in the current stack.
> 
> Of course, one could write an ElementFactory that uses a configuration
> file of some sort; it doesn't have to be hard-coded logic.
> 


OK ... 
but what I am getting at, is if we want a *simpler* XML DataBinding this isnt simple enough IMHO.
Full Stack XML already has data binding to native language objects.
What I am reading here is not really data binding but rather a DOM-like structure where MicroXML gets turned into Elements ...
Which is fine ... but if we want to compete against Simple Data Binding (a worthwhile goal IMHO)
Then the resultant objects should be something a user would like to use, not the XML model mapped to an XML Model in memory.
Something very much like what JSON can do to JavaScript objects,
or JAXB can do to Java Objects.

Hence Suggesting that we have some kind of data typing as part of the spec, either explicit or implicit.
XMLRPC is one example of an in-band XML Typing.  
If we could use xsi:type or something similar that would help, although we still "suffer" that maps can only have string values.

----------------------------------------
David A. Lee
dlee@calldei.com
http://www.xmlsh.org