• To: "'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Syntax + object model
• From: Mitch Amiano <mamiano@n...>
• Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 17:25:25 -0400
• In-reply-to: <3.0.6.32.20030523204507.0105a6c0@p...>
• Organization: Software Adjuvant
• References: <3.0.6.32.20030523204507.0105a6c0@p...>
• Reply-to: Mitch Amiano <mamiano@n...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312

We had OpenDoc for that. And Corba. And COM. 
And then there were Groves. And RDF. and...

An object model often reflects more compromises than you can shake a stick at,
and risks being either so ambiguous or so context-specific as to be useless. 

Gustaf Liljegren wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Maybe 5 years to late, but I never really understood the argument about why
> a standardized syntax is better than a standardized object model. It sounds
> right, but I can't explain why.
> 
> Imagine XML like a standardized object model of various node types, with no
> rules whatsoever about the serialization format. Why would such a standard
> have less chance to survive?
> 
> Also, imagine XML like a standardized object model PLUS a standardized
> syntax. Why would such a standard have less chance to survive?
> 
> Gustaf
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> 
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
> 
> 

• References:
  • Syntax + object model
    • From: Gustaf Liljegren <gustaf.liljegren@b...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: Syntax + object model
• Next by Date: Re: Syntax + object model
• Previous by thread: Re: Syntax + object model
• Next by thread: Re: Syntax + object model
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread