Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> In my view, information architectures based on XML > will be driven by XML schemas (hence the bean example in my last post). A > given schema tells you how to process a given class of instances, so you > have to have a single schema for a given instance. This seems emminently > logical to me, but I'd be curious to hear some justification for the > opposite view. I think this is a very domain-specific view. At the end of the day, a schema has *no* natural ability to enforce processing on an application. An application can *use* schemas to help decide how to process an instance, but it is the *application* that interprets the instance, not the schema. In your domain, (Bean serialization) you may state that the schema defines interpretation, but that view is limited to the specific application. A schema is simply a type *projection*, or an *assertion* that may, or may not be used. You can, and often do project different types onto a given instance. A (somehwat?) clear example of this is literate programming: I can treat the document as something to be printed, or I can interpret it as a program. For example: <add><integer>1</integer><integer>2</integer></add> How do you interpret this?
|
