- From: Ken MacLeod <ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us>
- Date: 30 Mar 2001 10:40:58 -0600
- To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
"Fredrik Lundh" <fredrik@pythonware.com> writes: > Andrew Layman wrote: > > Martin Gudgin wrote: "My point is that the [Busy Developer's > > Guide] implies that xsi:type will always be used whereas my > > feeling is it will only be used in dynamically typed systems..." > > > > Martin is correct. > > for SOAP, yes; for the SOAP "profile" covered by the BDG, no. > > as far as I can tell, the "BDG" intentionally limits itself to > dynamically typed environments. (Frontier, Python, Smalltalk, Perl, > Lisp, etc). it works fine for XML-RPC, after all... > > > For example, the following instance fragment > > > > <price>12345</price> > > > > would be valid and sufficient (not require an xsi:type attribute) > > if the metadata were like > > > > int price; > > > > but would be insufficient (require an xsi:type attribute) if the > > metadata were like > > > > Object price; > > or if you don't have any metadata at all, of course... > > (statically typed languages are sooo 20th century ;-) I don't believe the issue is between dynamic or static (did you mean manifestly?) typed languages. Perl, for example, has no problem with not having explicit type declarations (at least in the range we're talking about with XML-RPC ;-). "Strongly typed", maybe? -- Ken
Received on Friday, 30 March 2001 11:41:00 UTC