• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract
• From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
• Date: 28 Sep 2002 19:19:34 +0200
• In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.0.20020928074203.022ebec8@n...>
• References: <200209280146.g8S1kR319235@d...><5.1.0.14.0.20020927194520.00bcae40@n...><5.1.0.14.0.20020927194520.00bcae40@n...><5.1.0.14.0.20020927180018.04398a18@n...> <5.1.0.14.0.20020928074203.022ebec8@n...>

On Sat, 2002-09-28 at 13:50, Jonathan Robie wrote:
> To me, the most fundamental reason for datatypes is to allow them to be 
> part of the contract between producers and consumers of data. 

I wouldn't like to live in a dull world where there is to be an explicit
contract between every producer and every consumer and where they don't
exchange anything but data... :-)

The current tag soup is much more fun. What makes XML so interesting is
that XML *is* real life and it would be spoiled if it was reduced to a
model!

Eric
-- 
Rendez-vous à Paris.
                          http://www.technoforum.fr/integ2002/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       http://xmlfr.org            http://dyomedea.com
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>

• References:
  • Re: limits of the generic
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
  • Re: limits of the generic
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • Re: limits of the generic
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • Datatypes - it's in the contract
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>

• Prev by Date: RE: limits of the generic
• Next by Date: Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract
• Previous by thread: Datatypes - it's in the contract
• Next by thread: Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread