[xmlschemata] Re: Headaches w/ XDOTs

Oh, excuse me : I just forgot...

> From : xmlschemata-bounce@xmlschemata.org
> To : xmlschemata@xmlschemata.org
> Subject : [xmlschemata] Re: Headaches w/ XDOTs
>
> [...]So I could maybe put it like this :
> for instance, why on earth limit us to lists/unions ?
> Concretely, taking the risk to shock you, I'm pretty sure they are
> useful cases
> where all of the following nodes (marked with "(*)") could be considered as
> being *mere representation particles* of the very same, single, data type
> instance :
>
> ...
> <foobar foobar-att(*)="..."
> <gee(*)>...</gee>
> <gizmo
> <acme acme-att(*)="..." >...</acme>
> (*)....
> </gizmo>
> </foobar>

... This is one of the design goals for XML-DOT : being able to capture such a
case of "sparse" XML-ized data object instance... crazy?

> [...]I think that this question still is not clearly answered to, as of
> today, 2002 :

... not so, especially if we consider the cases where so-called "untyped" XML
data tranformation techniques/tools (such as XSLT) are to be allowed -but, at
the same time, *decoupled* in applications' processes... from the strong data
typing requirements of those same applications ! No?

(I feel that only, -truly object-oriented (for reusability)- types could "save
us", then ;=)

> [...]

Best,
--CJ
Received on Fri Jul 5 16:24:45 2002