W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > November 2000

Re: DR 201: straightforward mapping, or Schema?

From: MOREAU Jean-Jacques <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 11:32:34 +0100
Message-ID: <3A13B7C2.916240B4@crf.canon.fr>
To: Ray Whitmer <rayw@netscape.com>
CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org, David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>
Ray Whitmer wrote:

> >               XML Schema datatypes will be used to represent data
> >               types most commonly used in popular programming
> >               languages and object systems.
>
> If this were really the case, then it would seem to me that most of the
> 200's and 400's could be dropped generally, since XML messages in
> general are described well by schemas, and we don't need any special
> rules for that.  However, the requirements in the 400's for encoding
> nestable arrays, graphs, and "data based on datamodels not directly
> representable by XML Schema" leads me to believe that we are
> supplementing XML Schema with a standard XP encoding precisely because
> XML Schema datatypes do not directly represent certain models and types
> common in programming languages.

Well, maybe we should define these things you're mentioning, and that, today,
are not part of XML Schema part 2 (I certainly agree with that); but maybe we
should then hand them over to the Schema WG for inclusion into next revision of
their Rec? i.e. I am somewhat reluctant to having two specs (XP and XML Schema)
that overlap (and possibly contradict each other).

I know this may be a bit premature, but couldn't we split the XP spec into 2
parts, one for the encoding of additional datatypes, one for the rest? This
would gives us some more room in the future for (hypothetical) discussions with
the Schema WG.

Jean-Jacques.
Received on Thursday, 16 November 2000 05:35:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:57 GMT