Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 10:38 AM 5/7/2002 -0400, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: >At 3:26 PM +0200 5/7/02, Matthew Gertner wrote: >>Admittedly I am just restating the problem, but I am curious to know why you >>are so convinced that the data in XML documents are strings that can be >>translated into other data types when necessary, > >Because an XML document is defined as a finite sequences of characters. Actually, XML Schema defines value spaces for the various types, and many people are doing XML views of persistent data. >> and not dates, number, etc. >>that are serialized as strings when an XML document is instantiated. > >In this case, you have some other data that is not an XML document. This >data is then translated into strings which are stored in an XML document. >However, not all XML documents are created this way. A general purpose >technology like XSLT/XPath that has to be defined for all XML documents >cannot rely on characteristics that apply to only some XML documents; e.g. >that they were created by converting numbers into strings. I suspect much of this argument is between people who merely use XML as a transport and serialization technology, and those who actually do processing of XML that involves some knowledge of the types involved. Jonathan
|
