Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
David Megginson wrote: > > How does the schema tell me that foo represents a container for a > collection of objects, bar represents an object, and hack and flurb > represent the object's properties? It probably doesn't, but Matthew is right that you could imagine a schema language that DOES > Object exchange, while > important, represents only one of many layers that can be build on top > of XML, and if XML Schemas start trying to solve high-level problems > for every specific domain, it will become an unimplementable mess. I would argue that every domain, including documents, has a concept of "objects" and a concept of "properties." XML's inability to represent this is, in my opinion, a major flaw. It would be nice if schemas could work around that flaw but I still think that there is a place in the world for an instance-only syntax for objects and properties. > RDF already made a similar mistake by mixing together a spec for > object encoding in XML with a spec for representing knowledge about > Web pages. I agree that this was a mistake and it befuddled me for a while. I see it as a different situation, however, because I can't imagine a problem domain that does NOT need to know about structured objects and their properties. -- Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for himself "I always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been more specific." --Lily Tomlin xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; unsubscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
