• From: Stefan Haustein <haustein@k...>
• To: "Wang,David" <dwang@m...>, XML-Dev Mailing list <xml-dev@x...>
• Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 14:08:27 +0100

"Wang,David" wrote:
> 
> Very simple.  Terseness is not a design goal. :-)
(...)
> OOP classes binds "elements and types" together as one (implicitly), whereas
> in XML Schema they are actually separated, so all elements have to have a
> type or datatype.  Thus, you'd have to build up a type-hierarchy alongside
> an element one, depending on how you want to use it.

Yes -- but the question is: What is the motivation behind this?
No one showed a concrete example justifying making
everything that complicated so far.  

Furthermore, elements can (in fact) have a type AND a datatype 
in order to allow datatyped elements with attributes...

Best regards

Stefan
************************************************
This is xml-dev, the list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/threads.html
************************************************

• References:
  • RE: Schema concepts (was Re: W3C public lists (was Re: The Power of Groves))
    • From: Michael Rys <mrys@m...>
  • Re: Schema concepts (was Re: W3C public lists)
    • From: Stefan Haustein <stefan.haustein@t...>
  • Re: Schema concepts
    • From: Stefan Haustein <haustein@k...>
  • Re: Schema concepts
    • From: "Wang,David" <dwang@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Schema concepts
• Next by Date: Re: XML Schemas: Needs Marketing?
• Previous by thread: Re: Schema concepts
• Next by thread: Re: Schema concepts
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread