• To: xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: XML as "passive data" (Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! LongLive the Browser Wars!)
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 12:43:55 -0400
• In-reply-to: <3DB5761B.1050607@p...>

10/22/2002 12:00:27 PM, Paul Prescod <paul@p...> wrote:

>
>
>Completely passive *is the whole point of XML*. XML is a _reaction 
>against_ active data. If you don't "get" why that's valuable then fine, 
>you don't get it. But it isn't like the inventors of XML had never heard 
>of objects. Many were object programmers.

I think that's an extremely important point that doesn't get much
emphasis.  There seems to be a presupposition that OO approaches to XML app
design are de rigeur .... but the whole point of XML is to break the
encapsulation of data!  Am I missing something here?

BTW, what about "active data" was it necessary for XML to react to?  
I think I get it, but can't articulate it :-)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML as "passive data" (Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!)
    • From: "Alaric B. Snell" <alaric@a...>
  • Re: XML as "passive data" (Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!)
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • Re: XML as "passive data"
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• References:
  • Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!
• Next by Date: Re: XML as "passive data"
• Previous by thread: Re: What is XML For?
• Next by thread: Re: XML as "passive data"
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread