[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
Or the entire framework has a root called "object". Smalltalk, yes. Elegant. Urrmm... calling the GI a type has descriptive usefulness, but using it as a type is a higher level processing implication. Isn't that precisely why RELAX made validation its focus? Isn't that why people want a pipelined architecture? Nothing Steve claims changes the way Jonathan wants to *use* XML. Both can be right but Steve is arguing that Jonathan's use is one of many possible as long as namespaces don't lock the GI to a *type*. Isn't that why the spec stayed silent on any *use* past disambiguation? Parts and assemblies: it's in the way that you use it. len -----Original Message----- From: Sean McGrath [mailto:sean.mcgrath@p...] [Jonathan Borden] >What is the myth? "isa" links have been used forever. A "name" is a >character string, right, what is open to interpretation? But please tell me >about this "thing" that is different from its "name". I suspect that if you >can describe it with enough precision that the answer to these issues will >become apparent. For example do you wish to describe each and every element >that exists in the entire universe as a distinct "it" that "has-a" set of >properties. That would be tedious. And phenomenological to boot. Mind game: Imaging a UML tool where all classes are instances of a single uber-class with an attribute called "type".
|
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
|