• From: Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@S...>
• To: rjelliffe@a...
• Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:49:03 -0800

On 2009-11-20, at 10:56 PM, rjelliffe@a... wrote:

> The use of classes and subclasses is characteristic but not definitive of
> an object-oriented system. An object-oriented system is merely one where
> all the characteristics of a thing (typically methods and fields) are
> bundled, and where most or all things are objects.

Ever since Day 0, I've been uncomfortable with the notion that there's anything O-O about XML.  It seems to me at a pretty deep level that O-O is about hiding and encapsulation; an object is a thing that can do some things on demand, don't bother your pretty little head about how it's done.  

It seems to me like XML is oriented exactly 180° in the opposite direction: Here's the data, here are some labels for the data, here are some ordering and containment relationships, you're free to do whatever you want with it.  That's a good thing and (I've always the big win) - the provider doesn't constrain what the receiver does.  -Tim

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: An inquiry into the nature of XML and how it orientsour perception of information
    • From: Liam Quin <liam@w...>
  • RE: An inquiry into the nature of XML and how it orients our perception of information
    • From: "Michael Sokolov" <sokolov@i...>

• References:
  • An inquiry into the nature of XML and how it orients our perceptionof information
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • Re: An inquiry into the nature of XML and how it orients our perception of information
    • From: rjelliffe@a...