Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 07:27 AM 6/10/2003 +1200, Berend de Boer wrote: > >>>>> "Jonathan" == Jonathan Robie > <jonathan.robie@d...> writes: > > Jonathan> 3. The type hierarchies are not simple - the > Jonathan> distinct hierarchies for complex and simple types and > Jonathan> the distinction between elements and complex types > Jonathan> result in a more cluttered type system than that found > Jonathan> in most OO or relational systems. This is not the kind > Jonathan> of type lattice that a good datahead would normally > Jonathan> design. > >But it is the type part that is adopted by most other XML based >languages like Relax NG and XForms. Can't be too bad :-) Well, only the simple types are being incorporated into the other schema languages - and I believe that the extensible type system of the simple types is a very good thing. I'm not wild about all the Australian types (gDay and the other date/time types), and I wish integer were a primitive type rather than something derived from decimal by restriction, but the framework for constructing simple types is very elegant, I think. The type system as a whole, when you add in the complex types and substitution groups and all ... well, I agree, it's not too bad, it's workable but overly complex. Jonathan
|
