Right Ren -
I'm glad that you are putting this POV - I believe that these are both
legitimate positions, and in fact it is a policy decision that is required
here. Hopefully we can now flush the issue out into the open now.
Renato Iannella wrote:
>
> --On 1/3/00 10:34 AM +0800 Simon Cox wrote:
>
> > I disagree.
> >
> > Structured datatypes exist through "schemes", they always have.
> > This is a very effective, scalable, modular place to put them.
> > In general it is also very safe.
>
> I disagree ;-)
>
> Such data, that is a value conforming to an Encoding Scheme (eg URI)
> should be considered an "atomic" value. No *further* *interoperability*
> is *assumed* for this value (although you could).
"you could" is the important principle here.
I would contend that **for any value-encoding-scheme** if the client
knows about it, then they will know how to decompose, disaggregate, or
otherwise parse and process it in order to get maximum value.
If they do not, then at least the metadata provided will tell them how
to find out more about the scheme.
And if they choose not to, then they will only get a limited view of the value.
Just like I will only get a limited understanding from plain-text encoded in Spanish.
But it doesn't mean that there is no structure there.
--
Best Simon
|