• From: Steve Harris <sharris@p...>
• To: xml-dev@x...
• Date: 04 Feb 2000 09:09:15 -0800

Stefan Haustein <haustein@k...> writes:

[...]

> Can you please explain me then why Michael Anderson expected 
> exactly this behaviour in XML Schema? If OOP is watered for 
> efficency or legacy reasons in C++, that's OK to me. But when
> creationg something new like XML Schema, it's probably a good 
> chance to do it a bit more elegant. 

My comments were aimed squarely at the C++ comments, not really
considering XML-Schema. Thinking of what would be more 'elegant,'
though, still brings me back to the C++/LSP way of treating these
substitutability problems. What other ways are there? If your program
is expecting data _or_ a capability of form A and it encounters
something that cannot mimic A, then what can it do?

-- 
Steven E. Harris
Primus Knowledge Solutions, Inc.
http://www.primus.com

• References:
  • Re: XML Schema equivClass.
    • From: Steve Harris <sharris@p...>
  • Re: XML Schema equivClass.
    • From: Stefan Haustein <haustein@k...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Namespace prefix question
• Next by Date: Re: SAX2: Interning names in namespaces
• Previous by thread: Re: XML Schema equivClass.
• Next by thread: List archives?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread