Re: variables as nodes? (re: XML Binding Format)

On Mar 23, 2005, at 9:45 AM, Dave Beckett wrote:

> On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 14:05 -0500, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> On Mar 22, 2005, at 1:28 PM, Yoshio FUKUSHIGE wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Sorry for asking such question at this time of the year,
>>> but I prefer  <var name="foo"></var>-ish  thing.
>> Big +1.
>> It will also help with making it more W3C XML Schemable, which I  
>> regard
>> important, both in general and for teh WSDL.
> I presented two designs to the WG, attached to my emails:
> 0556.html
> 0364.html

Thanks for the pointers. I'll check them out. (They do antedate my  
joining the group.)

> to which the comments on XML-style and schemas support were mostly:
> KendallC:
>   I(Dave said):
>> Depends on how important schema validation is, I guess.
>   Kendall said:
>> I think it's overrated generally, but especially so here.
>   --  
> 0367.html
> I guess UMD has changed position :)  Which is perfectly fine.

Yep. :)

> and HowardK:
>> In terms of XQuery, I don't think there's a great difference between  
>> the two
>> result formats.
>   --  
> 0572.html
> Given no other big response influencing my choice after the last email,
> and subsequent telcon discussions, I chose the simplest thing that  
> would work.

I got it.

> Right now I can see there are more motivations for the complex form,
> with the schema support.  The result2* attachments to the 0364.html
> email include the schema-full design I made in November but it will
> need updating for later changes and to deal with other comments.

I will check it out. Thanks.


Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2005 15:56:53 UTC