RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".
><sf>If I encapsulate an element's content by switching during >processing to >an interface, that abstracts away - say - the structure >inside, then it will >be easier to produce applications, that are less likely to >break down. Does >anybody see a chance with today's tools?</sf> That's what I was suggesting. However, I don't see how this can be achieved without adding type information (AKA PSVI) to XML elements, and have a typing system that supports extensibility. Looks like we're reinventing OOP there, with XML as a data serialisation format. Lots of people will howl against this, I guess, because it would mean that XML as an independant technology did not met its promises. I did not make any promise (crossing my fingers, here), personally, so I don't mind. Another bunch of people would not be happy to see OOP concepts invade XML and shout that THE ENTIRE WORLD IS NOT OOP. That's right. But the entire world is not extensible. OOP was conceived to allow people to build better, extensible systems, after all, so no wonder we have to look at OOP when extensibility is an issue. Regards, Nicolas
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format