• To: <bob@w...>
• Subject: Re: Schema vs Schema-free (was: RE: XML BinaryCharacterization WG public list availabl)
• From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
• Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 14:51:13 -0400
• Cc: "'xml-dev'" <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <008501c42182$2cbd6010$650aa8c0@BOBDEV>
• References: <008501c42182$2cbd6010$650aa8c0@BOBDEV>

At 2:07 PM -0400 4/13/04, Bob Wyman wrote:

>	Certainly, it is sometimes important to ensure that leading
>zeros, gratuitous "+" signs, etc. are passed through systems
>untouched. However, it is important to understand that the importance
>varies depending on whether or not you are working with a schema.

It does not depend on whether *you* are working with a schema. It 
depends on whether *everyone* is working with the *same* schema. The 
assumption that there is a single unique schema, which everyone 
agrees to and adheres to is a common fallacy in the XML world.
-- 

   Elliotte Rusty Harold
   elharo@m...
   Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
   http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml
   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Schema vs Schema-free (was: RE: XML Binary Characterization WG public list availabl)
    • From: "Bob Wyman" <bob@w...>

• References:
  • Schema vs Schema-free (was: RE: XML Binary Characterization WG public list availabl)
    • From: "Bob Wyman" <bob@w...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Fast text output from SAX?
• Next by Date: Re: Fast text output from SAX?
• Previous by thread: Schema vs Schema-free (was: RE: XML Binary Characterization WG public list availabl)
• Next by thread: RE: Schema vs Schema-free (was: RE: XML Binary Characterization WG public list availabl)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread