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

Re: XML API specification

• From: Joe English <jenglish@c...>
• To: xml-dev@i...
• Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:59:08 -0800

Len Bullard <cbullard@h...> wrote:

> Could we go through the bone of contention up front
> and just settle it:  are grove and grove plan definitions of
> use to an object-oriented API design?  Really just asking here,
> so this gets settled and doesn't crop up again and again.

I think so.  It's very straightforward to translate class
definitions from a grove plan into class definitions in
(Java|C++|Modula-3|OO-language-of-choice).  That's pretty
much what James Clark did for the generic SP interface.

That's a good approach for processing XML-as-XML.  A slightly
different approach is useful when you want to add application
semantics, namely, to create a new class for each element
type of interest, (or better yet, for each architectural form).
That's sort of what SGMLS.pm, the original CoST, and (I think)
Peter M-R's CML tools do.



--Joe English

  jenglish@c...

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To unsubscribe, send to majordomo@i... the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (rzepa@i...)

• References:
  • Re: XML API specification
    • From: Len Bullard <cbullard@h...>
  • XML API specification
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML API specification
• Next by Date: XML API
• Previous by thread: Re: XML API specification
• Next by thread: Re: XML API specification
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread