Internal subset equivalent in new schema proposals?

[james anderson]

Rick Jelliffe wrote:
> 
> XML is not a "data exchange language" but a "data markup language". More
> than
> ASCII, less than serialization.

A narrower classification would be more accurate. As Mr Jelliffe illustrates
later in his note, since the descriptive capacity of XML is limited to
internal properties, XML is not even a "markup language", but rather a "markup
encoding". The difference is significant in that, once one acknowledges this
fact, any demands that the standard describe semantic properties of the
encoded data no longer even make any sense. It also becomes appearent that
successive layers are the way to go and the problem becomes much easier to handle.
> 
> Attribute types are IMHO fundamentally not geared to data typing but to
> marking up structures:
>
> ...
>
> So rather than saying that XML provides only limited built-in data types for
> attributes, I think it is fairer to say that XML provides *ABSOLUTELY NO*
> data types. The typing that is present is there for marking up structures
> (not data values per se) and making connections between nodes: for internal
> links, not for data typing.
> 
> Should XML provide better data types? I would say no: not in the XML 1.0
> spec.
> 
> Should XML provide better support for other data typing layers (schemas)? I
> would say yes: ....


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)