Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Jeff Lowery wrote: >>>That's a bit of a strawman, IMHO. It may have been the >> >>intent of the WG to >> >>>produce OO in XML, but regardless it seems natural to >> >>associate a collection >> >>>of properties with a concept. >> >>XML has neither the concept of properties nor the concept of >>concept. ;) I >>do know a language that has these concepts though. > > > Let's not argue semantics while arguing semantics, okay? I'm talking about > schema languages, not data. Data must be assigned types though a (schema) > mechanism. This is where we disagree. One can have a perfectly good schema that does not assign types. As long as the schema says what XML is valid on the wire/disk then I think it has done its job. Assigning a type is an orthogonal project. Where the description of syntax is necessary for interchange, the assignment of named types is primarily a convenience for the programmer. Interface versus implementation. > ... > I'm not saying that an XML element or attribute has to be assigned a type. > Yes, you can treat them purely syntactically. But if that XML is a > serialization of, say, an object's data, then in many cases it will be > useful to convey datatype information somehow. I agree. But I don't see why that "somehow" must be a schema. Paul Prescod
|
