Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > I am concerned that the theoretical use of schemas for typing is > overriding their practical use for constraint checking. The use isn't theoretical. Witness all the products that generate classes from XML Schemas. > Very few people > are actually using schemas for typing. Instead they're being used for > validation. I think it depends on how you do the counting. Clearly, the number of people validating schemas outnumbers the number of people writing code that explores them. This is a restatement of the fact that the number of document authors is greater than the number of programmers. If you count applications, validators are a minority. > In validation, we need local types (if not necessarily unqualified > local types) because the W3C XML Schema Language confuses the two > separate issues of typing and constraints checking, especially when > it comes to complex types. I don't want to see any prohibition on > local types enshrined as a best practice, or otherwise deprecated. Could you explain this further? Isn't constraints checking either (a) the checking of data against types, or (b) the definition of domains for a given type? (I suppose this also depends on what you mean by "type".) -- Ron
|
