Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Joe English <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:59:08 -0800
Len Bullard <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Could we go through the bone of contention up front
> and just settle it: are grove and grove plan definitions of
> use to an object-oriented API design? Really just asking here,
> so this gets settled and doesn't crop up again and again.
I think so. It's very straightforward to translate class
definitions from a grove plan into class definitions in
(Java|C++|Modula-3|OO-language-of-choice). That's pretty
much what James Clark did for the generic SP interface.
That's a good approach for processing XML-as-XML. A slightly
different approach is useful when you want to add application
semantics, namely, to create a new class for each element
type of interest, (or better yet, for each architectural form).
That's sort of what SGMLS.pm, the original CoST, and (I think)
Peter M-R's CML tools do.
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To unsubscribe, send to email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (firstname.lastname@example.org)