Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
>
>...
>
> SOAP does not use XML-Schema for its typing. SOAP itself may be described
> by XML-Schema, but it doesn't leverage XML-Schema; SOAP talks of schemas
> in XML for specifying interfaces, but those schemas are SOAP
> schemas, not XML-Schema schemas.
I've never heard the term "SOAP Schema" before.
>From SOAP 1.1:
> The datatype "string" is defined in "XML Schema Part 2:
> Datatypes" Specification [11].
> Throughout this document, the namespace prefix "xsi" is
> assumed to be associated with the URI
> "http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema-instance"; which
> is defined in the XML Schemas specification [11].
> Similarly, the namespace prefix "xsd" is assumed
> to be associated with the URI
> "http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema"; which is defined in [10].
Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
...
> XML attributes are key/value pairs where neither may contain tags. This
> leads to an artificial split in the type system, between the tagful and
> the tagless. Tagless types have their own little syntax, often
> regexp-wise, for which XML itself does not do anything; tagful types take
> advantage of XML, but are second-class citizens.
I don't really see how they are second-class citizens at all! Merely
because they are not name-value pairs?
> ... Each type is on one side
> or the other and there is little logic for deciding which goes where.
I agree that this is an inconvenience but nothing more. You can easily
define a profile of XML with all-elements if this dichotomy bothers.
> LGram is intended as a coherent whole that derives its design more
> directly from how programming languages work instead of trying to bolt
> that onto a semantic-text-markup system.
In the end, it is just syntax. The most important thing about an
interchange syntax is ubiquity. Other concerns are secondary.
Paul Prescod
