W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-microxml@w3.org > January 2013

Re: A really micro schema language

From: James Fuller <jim@webcomposite.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:23:39 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEaz5msjuQ-gSHN3MUd3vty1UVMYZz6urazj81ZWOfrDqGR2uw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>, David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com>, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>, James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>, "public-microxml@w3.org" <public-microxml@w3.org>
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:37 PM, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Michael Kay writes:
>> Exchanging typed data makes sense to me. Doing it by reducing all the
>> data to text, and then sending the type information separately in
>> another document, to be matched up with the serialized instance by
>> means of a complex parsing process, doesn't make much sense at all. If
>> you want to send typed data, the type information should be embedded
>> in the instance.
> Reasonable persons might differ.  The association between types and
> tokens need not be complex, and the benefits of separating a contract
> from what it governs are substantial, in my experience.

I agree with MKay well defined sentiments 100%  I can see completely
the benefits of separating out this contract, but the 80/20 rule does
not apply to this scenario. Similarly I don't see why this scenario
occludes the existence of any other.

Jim Fuller
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2013 07:30:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:12:12 UTC