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

Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't dese rveits

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't dese rveits "X".)
• From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
• Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 09:10:58 -0500
• References: <575CBD83AE7DD411A23500B0D049C2F9C07705@SRVSOCRATE>

[Nicolas LEHUEN]
...
Plus, of course, the child object can add a new method which gives access to
the new data model, and this method will be used by callers that rely on the
new schema.

That's why I believe OOP can provide useful insights in bringing the X to
XML.

[me]
No argument from me about this.  Remember, though, that we can remove
structures that are in ancestor types and elements when we derive new ones -
XML Schema supports doing so, for example  - which we can't with standard OO
methodologies.  In this way, XML markup can be considered richer than OO
modeling.

Cheers,

Tom P

• References:
  • RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't dese rve its "X".)
    • From: Nicolas LEHUEN <nicolas.lehuen@u...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't dese rveits "X".)
• Next by Date: Re: JSP or XSL?
• Previous by thread: Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't dese rveits "X".)
• Next by thread: JSP or XSL?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread