[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Stefan Haustein <haustein@kimo.cs.uni-dortmund.de>
- To: "Wang,David" <dwang@mitre.org>, XML-Dev Mailing list <xml-dev@xml.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 14:08:27 +0100
"Wang,David" wrote:
>
> Very simple. Terseness is not a design goal. :-)
(...)
> OOP classes binds "elements and types" together as one (implicitly), whereas
> in XML Schema they are actually separated, so all elements have to have a
> type or datatype. Thus, you'd have to build up a type-hierarchy alongside
> an element one, depending on how you want to use it.
Yes -- but the question is: What is the motivation behind this?
No one showed a concrete example justifying making
everything that complicated so far.
Furthermore, elements can (in fact) have a type AND a datatype
in order to allow datatyped elements with attributes...
Best regards
Stefan
************************************************
This is xml-dev, the list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/threads.html
************************************************
|
