• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Strong versus (weak|runtime) typing
• From: Berend de Boer <berend@x...>
• Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:28:35 +1300
• In-reply-to: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F804B54CA1@R...> ("DareObasanjo"'s message of "Wed, 12 Feb 2003 12:05:37 -0800")
• References: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F804B54CA1@R...>
• User-agent: Gnus/5.090014 (Oort Gnus v0.14) Emacs/21.2(i386-msvc-nt5.0.2195)

>>>>> "DO" == Dare Obasanjo <dareo@m...> writes:

    DO> As for what this argument has to do with the XML arguments on
    DO> strong vs.  weak typing I'd assumed it was obvious. The people
    DO> who process XML with strongly typed languages (e.g. Java & C#
    DO> folks) are all about strongly typed XML while those who
    DO> process it with weakly typed languages (Perl & Python folks)
    DO> are for weak typing in XML. Or at least that has been the case
    DO> in the XML-DEV discussions I've seen.

I'm a strongly typed person (Eiffel), but this mailing list has me
absolutely convinced about weak typing in XML :-)

-- 
Regards,

Berend. (-:

• References:
  • RE: Strong versus (weak|runtime) typing
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Strong versus (weak|runtime) typing
• Next by Date: Re: Strong versus (weak|runtime) typing
• Previous by thread: RE: Strong versus (weak|runtime) typing
• Next by thread: Re: Strong versus (weak|runtime) typing
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread