Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2008, at 18:23, Pete Cordell wrote:
>> Original Message From: "Elliotte Harold":
>>> The lack of types is what makes XML a distinct improvement over some
>>> competing efforts. It is not an accident or an oversight, but part
>>> of the core value proposition of XML.
>>
>> Maybe for some. But not for all.
>
> You already have a namespace URI and a local name, why add a type?
> I've only ever seen xsi:type used badly. Document-level casting is
> silly, really. It's like saying "what this really is is a whale,
> that's what it is, but I'm going to call it a lemur, just because. I
> think someone said I could only have lemurs. Yeah it's a lemur; a
> humongous, blubbery water lemur."
Personally, I HATE xsi:type. In most B2B scenarios I've been involved
with it causes more interoperability issues then it solves. I'd much
rather get rid of XML type, and force people to validate against the
schema as is (whether that be RelaxNG, DTD, XSD, SchemaTron....etc).
Dave
