• From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@h...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 07:34:05 -0500

Gavin Thomas Nicol)


>
> Right, but if you view attributes at "attributes of a type", and
> content as "attributes of a type" (syntactic sugar), we get into
> a funky world where one asks why you can't specify the ordering
> of attributes as you can content. This is kind of where the
> SML folk were coming from.

The question of "order" is separate from that of a "type".  In relational
databases, each returned row can be seen as an instance of a type (a la C.
J. Date), but the components of that type form a set, not a list.

Maybe you could view an element as being instances of two types at the same
time: the type defined by the attribute set and the type defined by the
non-attribute content.  What a wierd thought!

Cheers,

Tom P

• Follow-Ups:
  • multiple types (Re: attribute order)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • RE: attribute order (RE: Syntax Sugar and XML information models)
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@e...>

• References:
  • RE: attribute order (RE: Syntax Sugar and XML information models)
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@e...>

• Prev by Date: Re: SQL Generation
• Next by Date: [ANN] Idoox WASP (Web Application and Services Platform) - efficientdevelopment, testing and deployment of SOAP Web Services
• Previous by thread: RE: attribute order (RE: Syntax Sugar and XML information models)
• Next by thread: multiple types (Re: attribute order)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread