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.

Received on Thursday, 16 November 2000 05:35:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:10 UTC