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

Re: Schema concepts

• From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)
• To: "XML-Dev Mailing list" <xml-dev@x...>
• Date: 16 Feb 2000 09:46:36 +0000

"Wang,David" <dwang@m...> writes:

> Very simple.  Terseness is not a design goal. :-)
> 
> I am no authority on this, but this is my understanding:
> OOP classes binds "elements and types" together as one (implicitly), whereas
> in XML Schema they are actually separated, so all elements have to have a
> type or datatype.  Thus, you'd have to build up a type-hierarchy alongside
> an element one, depending on how you want to use it.

Precisely.  See my forthcoming reply to the original post.

ht
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
          W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@c...
		     URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
************************************************
This is xml-dev, the list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/threads.html
************************************************

• References:
  • RE: Schema concepts (was Re: W3C public lists (was Re: The Power of Groves))
    • From: Michael Rys <mrys@m...>
  • Re: Schema concepts (was Re: W3C public lists)
    • From: Stefan Haustein <stefan.haustein@t...>
  • Re: Schema concepts
    • From: Stefan Haustein <haustein@k...>
  • Re: Schema concepts
    • From: "Wang,David" <dwang@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Equivalence classes
• Next by Date: Re: Schema concepts
• Previous by thread: Re: Schema concepts
• Next by thread: Re: Schema concepts
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread