xml-dev - Re: XObjects

[Graham Moore <graham.moore@dpsl.co.uk>]

1) Using a PI means that the XML is no longer nuetral. I think this is bad. 
I want to be able to send an XML transaction to two different places where 
the places know the binding they want to associate. I dont want the XML 
telling them.

2) Having a root object that knows how to build its children and its 
children know how to build there children etc seems redundant as the data 
structures are self describing. I think the reason this is all so exciting 
is that we have the ability to move away from this constrained object 
instantiation model to a more dynamic one.

We can build generic data objects and add in functionality. A generic data 
object can be used because the data is self describing. The generic data 
object removes the need for every class to know how to build its children. 
We already see the generic way a DOM - with no functionality is built. It 
only requires a small extension to build a functional DOM in a generic 
fashion.

Bill wrote

>    document + bindings + classes = application-specific agent

I agree with :

   document + bindings + classes =

I'm not sure we should limit it to agents though. Agents are one 
application.

> This approach precludes many things. It is not generic to
> XML processing.

I dont see this as XML processing. I see XML as being a standard way of 
representing serialised objects. The fact that they are open and self 
describing allow dynamic binding of functionality. Once the objects are 
built they are just objects and are used with the rest of the application.





xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)