• To: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@m...>
• Subject: Re: ConciseXML syntax
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 12:31:55 -0800
• Cc: Mike Plusch <mplusch@c...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F804B54B0D@R...>
• References: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F804B54B0D@R...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130

Dare Obasanjo wrote:

> PS: XML can't represent objects at best it can represent C-style structs
> and even then it needs a notion of IDness to do this completely. 

Er uh yes XML can represent objects.  This is usually a bad idea, but it 
can be done.  Objects can be serialized/persisted, and pretty well 
anything that can be serialized/persisted can be dressed in XML syntax. 
  What am I missing? -Tim

• References:
  • RE: ConciseXML syntax
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: ConciseXML syntax and compatibility
• Next by Date: Re: ConciseXML syntax
• Previous by thread: Adam Bosworth meets ConciseXML syntax (was two extremely similar threads...)
• Next by thread: RE: ConciseXML syntax
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread