[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: XAPI

• From: Sean Mc Grath <digitome@i...>
• To: xml-dev@i...
• Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 11:36:04 +0100

[Jonathan Robie]
>
>Is there really an advantage to defining it in IDL first? The IDL could be
>created after the specification is finished in Java, and the Java-based
>specification is probably easier to create, understand, and test. I *like*
>making things language independent, but at this stage, I'm leery of adding
>complexity that doesn't add any new conceptual power.

Hmmm. IDL == Language independent spec of an API....might this be better
approached
as an XML application? I.e. a DTD for the XML API spec. A doc conforming to
that spec.
that can be down-translated to Java, C++, Python  and (gasp) IDL!

APIs are stuctured docs. Let's practice what we are preaching and capture the
API in XML. Unless there are compelling reasons why this does not make sense.

Just thinking out loud and looking forward to a discussion on the issue.


Sean


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To unsubscribe, send to majordomo@i... the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (rzepa@i...)

• Prev by Date: Re: XML internal text entity replacement text
• Next by Date: DTD invented by Microsoft?!
• Previous by thread: Re: XAPI
• Next by thread: RE: XAPI
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread