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

Re: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn'tdeserve

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn'tdeserve its "X".)
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 14:05:55 -0500
• In-reply-to: <8BD7226E07DDFF49AF5EF4030ACE0B7E05573B8B@r...>

3/5/2002 1:45:56 PM, "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...> wrote:

>
>But in the programming language the type information is out of band as
>well. Information about simple types is obviously not but declarations
>of complex types are not available simply from looking at that one
>class. 

Right.  My point was to ask why it helps to put some meta-information
in-line but make the user get other information out of band. Compilers
(as far as I know) generally do it out of band.  I
can see doing it all inline, all out of band, but not a mix of both.
That leads us into the PSVI muddle.

Again, maybe there's a good reason for this ... someone please educate
me.

• References:
  • RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn'tdeserve its "X".)
• Next by Date: Re: XML doesn't deserve its "X".
• Previous by thread: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
• Next by thread: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread