Altova Mailing List Archives
>xml-dev Archive Home
>Thread Prev - RE: [xml-dev] Stupid Question (was RE: [xml-dev] XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
Re: [xml-dev] Stupid Question (was RE: [xml-dev] XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
Date: 3/6/2002 2:43:00 AM
Dare Obasanjo wrote: > > There is no rule that states that xsi:type should only describe > simpleTypes. Your post is basically stating > > I'm having a hard time envisioning a scenario where having > XML schema type information for an instance document would > be useful to an application. > > Which just means that the kind of problems you have to solve are > different from those that those of us that are interested in strongly > typed data have to solve. I'm actually very interested in strongly typed data, and strongly typed processes as well. But in an application designed to process documents conforming to a particular schema, there's very little that the PSVI can add that the application doesn't already know (by virtue of its author having coded to the schema). The main point of a validator IMO is to prevent ill-typed data from being fed to such a process to begin with. Of course this may just be a lack of imagination on my part; there may be many compelling use cases for xsi:type, I just can't think of any. In most applications I've written, by the time a function has its hands on a piece of data, it already knows what the relevant type is. --Joe English jenglish@f...