xml-dev - Re: XML Schema equivClass.

[Steve Harris <sharris@primus.com>]

Stefan Haustein <haustein@kimo.cs.uni-dortmund.de> writes:

[...]

> Can you please explain me then why Michael Anderson expected 
> exactly this behaviour in XML Schema? If OOP is watered for 
> efficency or legacy reasons in C++, that's OK to me. But when
> creationg something new like XML Schema, it's probably a good 
> chance to do it a bit more elegant. 

My comments were aimed squarely at the C++ comments, not really
considering XML-Schema. Thinking of what would be more 'elegant,'
though, still brings me back to the C++/LSP way of treating these
substitutability problems. What other ways are there? If your program
is expecting data _or_ a capability of form A and it encounters
something that cannot mimic A, then what can it do?

-- 
Steven E. Harris
Primus Knowledge Solutions, Inc.
http://www.primus.com