Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> > I think people are getting confused between instances and type > > definitions. In the context of a type definition, it makes great > > sense to use "is-a" and "has-a" and "extends", etc. This is > > again, defining the *type*, not an instance. > > Are you saying anything different than there is a difference > between an XML document and a schema describing the document? No. Thank's for being succinct :-) The point I was trying to make it that these are logically orthoganal. > Examplotron is something that blurs this. I'm not sure that it does... or if it does, it's because of the nature of XML type projection. I can say a document A extends document B if document A has all of the elements and attributes of document B in the same relative ordering. In that case, the document sometimes acts as a schema, sometimes as a document. I think the role distinction is important though because it allows us to unify type projection no matter what schema language is used.
|
